Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords.] (By Order.)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords] AND LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords] (SUSPENSION).

Ordered:
That the Promoters of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords] and the London Midland and Scottish Railway (Canals) Bill [Lords] have leave to suspend further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the same, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention so to do be given in the Committee and Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees thereon due up to that period be paid.

Ordered:
That in case either of the said Bills shall be brought from the Lords in the next Session of Parliament, a declaration signed by the Agent stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office before the First Reading of such Bill, and as soon as one of the Clerks in the Committee and Private Bill Office has certified that such deposit has been duly made, the Bill shall be read the first time and shall be deemed to have been read a second time, committed and reported with such Amendments as have been made to the Bill in Committee in the present Session (and shall be recorded in the Votes as having been so read, committed and reported) and the Bill, as amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

To be communicated to the Lords and to be Standing Orders of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNMARRIED WOMEN (PENSIONS)

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister without Portfolio if he will explain the method of actuarial calculation employed to determine the appropriate age and pension rate for unmarried women, the amount of contributions credited to them on account of all women who die unmarried; what proportion of the contributions paid by women who subsequently marry is allotted to the unmarried women to increase their pension rate; and what the actuarial pension would be if the age was reduced to 55 years.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): It is not the function of the Government Actuary to determine the retiring age and pension rate for women, but to work out a rate of contribution appropriate to the age and pension rate specified in his instructions. The actuarial principles governing the calculation of the rates of contributions towards pensions under the Government's Social Insurance proposals are indicated in paragraph 11 of the Government Actuary's memorandum which forms Appendix I to the White Paper. As there indicated, the contribution, in the case of women who do not marry, is appreciably lower than it would be if this group could be considered in isolation. I am informed that, if unmarried women were allowed to retire on pension at 55 instead of 60 and contributions ceased to be payable at the earlier age, the equivalent pension would be about 13s. instead of 20s. a week.

Miss Rathbone: What would be the weekly contribution, if the pension rates were the same, but were paid for by the contributions of all women?

Sir W. Jowitt: I have not had that calculation worked out. On the basis of the contributions at present, that is, stopping at 55, it is 13s. instead of 20s.

Mr. Kirkwood: Are we to understand that the consideration which the Government have given in this case, is more generous than these individuals have demanded?

Sir W. Jowitt: Not more generous than they have demanded, but more generous than it would be if that class were treated entirely by itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Hospital, S.E.A.C. (Conditions)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet investigated the complaint concerning a British general hospital in S.E.A.C., of the identity of which he has been informed.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): It is clear, from a telegraphic report I have received, that this hospital was opened on 1st March, and that, at the end of March, the site was overrun by the Japanese and was the scene of fierce fighting. This seems to me to explain fully why the hospital itself was moved several times and why its buildings have had to be considerably rebuilt. I am expecting a full report by air mail.

Mechanical Equipment (France)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War if he can make a statement on the record of our mechanised equipment, vehicles, etc., during the advance in France, on the results obtained by our tanks, giving the speed and distances covered, the percentage of mechanical failures and any other information about the success gained by mechanical equipment and vehicles.

Sir J. Grigg: I have had no formal and detailed reports on the performance of British mechanical equipment during the advance in France. There has, however, been a good deal of information which goes to show that it was highly satisfactory. Anyhow, the results appear to have been so. Moreover, there is clear evidence of this from the fact that the maintenance load was very small and much less than expected. So far as tanks in particular are concerned I can say that the Cromwell tanks of one armoured division covered 250 miles in six days, and, in spite of the fact that there were no opportunities for the normal maintenance during this period, the losses from mechanical defects were practically negligible.

Mr. Smith: Will the Secretary of State consult the Minister of Information with

a view to having that reply printed in bold type, and posted in the engineering establishments responsible for these tanks?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider it.

Bilston By-Election (Notice)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War, how many days before polling day a notice was posted for the information of No. 5 Company, 4 Command Signals, A.T.S., drawing their attention to the Bilston by-election.

Sir J. Grigg: When a by-election is pending, an A.C.I. is issued to all units informing them of this and instructing them to take immediately the necessary action under A.C.I. 788 of 1943 to enable personnel who are entitled to vote to be put on the absent voters list. The unit referred to here had only recently been formed and had not yet been supplied with the volumes of A.C.Is. for 1943. The Commanding Officer did not, therefore, appreciate that the matter was urgent, but, as soon as she received the 1943 A.C.I. the necessary action was taken. I understand that only one auxiliary in this unit was entitled to vote. I regret the omission in this case but: I hope it will not recur.

Recruitment and Training of Teachers (Leaflet)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Secretary of State for War what he has done to ensure that all Army personnel shall be fully advised how to take advantage of the emergency scheme for recruitment and training of teachers.

Sir J. Grigg: A leaflet, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member, specially prepared by the Ministry of Education, has been sent to all Commands at home and abroad for distribution to all officers and other ranks of the Army Educational Corps to enable them to deal with enquiries on this matter.

Mr. Bowles: If a man in the Army tried to find out the information and the Board of Education told him that he could ask for it through the usual Service channels, would the procedure now be clear to the man wanting the information?

Sir J. Grigg: I am sorry I did not understand the Question.

Mr. Bowles: Is the procedure better than it was six month ago?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not know what the procedure was six months ago, but a leaflet has been sent out to enable members of the Army Educational Corps to answer inquiries without going back to the Ministry of Education for it.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the Minister follow up that leaflet by asking what steps have been taken, in view of the great need for teachers?

Sir J. Grigg: The only way in which I could get the answer to that question would be to call for a return from every one of the thousands of units in the Army. I do not think that is a practicable suggestion.

Sir Joseph Lamb: May I ask the Minister whether this will apply equally to women and men?

Sir J. Grigg: I will not say equally—there will be corresponding facilities, certainly.

Demobilisation (Medical and Dental Examination)

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements can be made for a thorough medical and dental examination of all men and women on demobilisation from the Army.

Sir. J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Such arrangements will be instituted when the release scheme is brought into operation.

Home Guard

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to have issued to each member of the Home Guard on disbandment a certificate similar to those issued to the Army after the last war.

Sir J. Grigg: As my right hon. Friend will have seen from the newspapers, His Majesty The King has graciously signified his wish that a certificate signed by His Majesty should be issued to all serving members of the Home Guard and to ex-members who apply for it. Issue of these certificates to Territorial Army Associations will commence shortly.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Will women be open to receive these certificates?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think they are members of the Home Guard, but I would rather like notice of that Question.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War what reductions have been made in the number of regular officers and men serving with the Home Guard since the orders regarding the cessation of compulsory training and parades.

Sir J. Grigg: No reductions in establishments have yet been made but certain vacancies which have occurred have not been, filled. Steps are being taken to reduce the number of training officers by 280 and now that it has been decided to stand down the Home Guard the number of Regular officers serving with it will be progressively reduced.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of economy in dealing with these matters?

Sir J. Grigg: Certainly, Sir. They will not be kept longer than is necessary, but there is a good deal of administrative work to be done in connection with the "stand down" and handing in of equipment.

Local Leave (Paris and Brussels)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to use Paris and Brussels for local leave to British troops in North-West Europe; to what extent each city is to be available; and what arrangements are being made for the troops' accommodation and entertainment.

Sir J. Grigg: The use of Paris and Brussels for local leave is a matter for the Commander-in-Chief; Brussels is already available for this purpose and I understand Paris will be shortly. Accommodation in both cities is or will be provided by hostels run by N.A.A.F.I. and the voluntary bodies in concert with Army Welfare Services. As regards entertainment in Brussels, I would refer to a reply I gave on 24th October to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry). The Department of National Service Entertainment is prepared to supply entertainment to Paris if necessary.

Captain Duncan: In view of the fact that Brussels is in the British zone, will my right hon. Friend direct as much entertainment as he can to Brussels, rather than to Paris, which is not in the British zone?

Sir J. Grigg: That is a different question, and I would like notice of it. Questions which involve the relationships between constituent parts of the Allied Armies are sometimes rather delicate.

Headquarter Staffs (Reduction)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage reductions in the staffs of commands, districts, sub-districts and garrisons in this country have been made since D-Day.

Sir J. Grigg: The staffs of the headquarters in the static chain of command in the United Kingdom are changed according to the tasks they have to carry out, and appropriate reductions have been and are being made as a result of the decreased responsibilities of these formations since the despatch of the British Liberation Army to the Continent. It would not be in the public interest to give details of these changes, but I can say that a number of districts, sub-districts and garrisons have been entirely abolished, in addition to the merging announced yesterday of Eastern and South-Eastern Command.

Beach Defence Works (South Coast)

Lieutenant-Commander Joynson-Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the rapid incursion of the sea into the South coast of England; and what steps he is taking to repair the sea defences breached during the military occupation of the foreshore.

Sir J. Grigg: I am aware that in some places military requirements have prevented maintenance of sea defences. Where a claim in respect of damage lies under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, it should be submitted to the War Department Land Agent and Valuer. Generally speaking these claims relate to cases where the Army has done direct damage. In cases where the damage is due to denial of access for military reasons I am advised that no claim lies under the Act. In either case actually to carry out repairs from military sources is beyond our capacity. In this connexion I would refer to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on 10th October.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to remove the

palisades, barbed wire and other military defences from the shore in those areas to which access has recently been regranted to the population; whether the local authorities concerned have been informed of the arrangements; and if the cost of restoration is to the account of his department.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on 10th October. I have nothing to add to that reply at present.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that similar steps for the removal of blocks on roads immediately behind the beaches are being carried out by the local highway authorities at the expense of the Ministry of War Transport; and will he co-ordinate those activities?

Sir J. Grigg: I would like notice of that question. At first sight, it looks to me to be a suggestion that the War Office should take on even more than is already thrust upon it.

Auxiliary Territorial Service

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what cash allowances are provided for members of the A.T.S. who are proceeding to India or S.E.A.C.; and whether, having regard to many unforeseen difficulties which may confront service personnel before reaching their destination, he is satisfied that the money is sufficient to cover every emergency;
(2) whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the allowances for the purchase of a proper supply of tropical kit by members of the women's services proceeding to India or S.E.A.C.; and will he consult with people who know the conditions of service with a view to providing adequate kit.

Sir J. Grigg: A.T.S. officers on being placed under orders to proceed to a station abroad may be granted on request an advance of pay amounting to one month's net pay. No allowances are admissible during the voyage, free subsistence being provided. I have no reason to suppose that this arrangement is inadequate in the case of officers proceeding to India or S.E.A.C. The only members of the A.T.S. concerned are a few officers who are on loan for instructional purposes with


the Women's Auxiliary Corps (India). They are to receive a Tropical Outfit Allowance under Indian Regulations which, I understand, will amount to at least £15.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Prime Minister said that the standard of welfare and comfort of the troops in India was to be on the highest possible level; and is he aware that the allowances do not permit serving women officers to buy sufficient tropical kit for comfort?

Sir J. Grigg: These are people who have been borrowed by India, and are getting an outfit under the Indian Regulations.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether A.T.S. medical orderlies are eligible for trade rates of pay.

Sir J. Grigg: Trade rates of pay are given to personnel whose work is specially skilled or technical and it is not considered that the work done by an A.T.S. medical orderly qualifies for this addition. A.T.S. nursing orderlies, who in certain circumstances are interchangeable with R.A.M.C. nursing orderlies, naturally receive trade rates of pay.

Territorial Efficiency Medal

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men now serving in India, who have served in the ranks of the Territorial Army for a number of years and have secured a commission, forfeit their right to receive the Teritorial Efficiency Medal, for which they would have qualified had they remained in the ranks; and will he reconsider the question of qualification for this award in order to remove what many officers feel is a grievance.

Sir J. Grigg: The Territorial Efficiency Medal is restricted to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Army who complete 12 years continuous service in the ranks. Embodied war service counts double. My hon. Friend will appreciate that a commissioned officer cannot in these circumstances receive the medal.

Colonel Greenwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such service counts towards the Territorial decoration?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, but often there is the case when an officer who has an emergency commission cannot have the Territorial decoration.

Discharged Personnel (Leave and Pay)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War, what leave, upon discharge, is granted to personnel of the Army discharged under paragraph 390 (XVIII) (a), K.R. 1940, and paragraph 390 (XXI) (b), K.R. 1940.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether men invalided out of the Army without pension are granted full pay and allowances for the first eight weeks after their discharge, as would be the case in the event of their demobilisation.

Sir J. Grigg: Officers and other ranks invalided out of the Army are now given eight weeks' notice leave with full pay and allowances, irrespective of their entitlement to pension. Soldiers discharged under sub-paragraphs xviii (a) and xxi (b) of paragraph ago of King's Regulations are granted 14 days' terminal leave unless they are discharged for the purpose of immediate re-enlistment into other Armed Forces or into the Army on a regular engagement.

Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the inadequacy of 14 days' leave for a man who is discharged from the Forces, first, to enable him to recuperate after his service, and secondly, to fit himself for civilian life; and will my right hon. Friend consider increasing that amount of leave?

Sir J. Grigg: Some of the cases covered by these two rather ambiguous paragraphs are well worthy of consideration, and in fact they are already being considered.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there should be any difference between the man discharged without pension and the man who is demobilised? Why cannot they receive the same treatment?

Sir J. Grigg: Some of them are discharged or released from the Forces immediately for the purpose of taking up a civil job. Some of them, though not under these particular paragraphs, are discharged for misconduct, and there is a very good case for treating them separately.

Mr. Shinwell: With these exceptions, which I recognise, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not possible, in the absence of misdemeanour or any other cause, to treat these men as if they were demobilised?

Sir J. Grigg: I said that I am considering these particular Regulations. The cases are so different I certainly cannot give a categorical assurance to cover them all, but I will reconsider whether some of them ought not to come under the regulation granting them the longer period of Service leave.

Non-Tradesmen (Pay)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the rates of pay for a non-tradesman sergeant with 18 months' service and a private soldier on the highest rate of non-tradesman pay with five years' service.

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the hon. Member's Question taken literally is that they are the same, viz. 7s. 0d. a day. But it is a very unusual comparison for, leaving out of account the special pay to those serving in the Far East, it seeks to compare what is in effect the highest paid non-tradesman private and the lowest paid sergeant. There must be a few cases of sergeants with only 18 months' service in all. Most of them would have enough service to qualify for at least one of the war service increments. For example a sergeant with 5 years' reckonable war service would receive war service increments of 2s. 6d. a day making his total rate 9s. 6d.; and if he had served as a sergeant for 3 years he would receive an additional normal increment of 6d., bringing his rate up to 10s. 0d. a day.

Mr. Bellenger: Would my right hon. Friend agree that between certain sergeants and a large number of the highest paid private soldiers, there is not a wide discrepancy in the rates of pay; and does he not think, therefore, that such a trained N.C.O. as a sergeant should have a considerably higher rate of pay than a private?

Sir J. Grigg: As I say, this case is a comparatively rare one and I do not think it is possible under any human system produced in war-time to remove all anomalies. I am not very satisfied on this one.

Doctors (Casualties)

Dr. Howitt: asked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of casualties amongst doctors serving in the Army during the war up to the present time.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that it is not in the public interest to give particulars of casualties suffered by individual corps or regiments.

Exercises, Norfolk (German Uniforms)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Secretary of State for War under what circumstances British soldiers were recently wearing German uniforms and carrying arms on the North Norfolk coast.

Sir J. Grigg: It, is valuable for soldiers training to fight Germans to take part in exercises with soldiers who look like Germans and fire German weapons.

Sir T. Cook: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this form of exercise causes considerable alarm locally, and does he not consider that the British troops involved run grave risk of being shot by volunteers whose duty is to defend these shores?

Sir J. Grigg: I did not hear the first part of the Question, but in reply to the second part, this practice has been going on for the last four years.

War Correspondents (News Transmission Facilities)

Mr. Craik Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that war correspondents with the British Army on the Continent do not receive the same facilities for the transmission of news that is given to correspondents with the Army of the U.S.A.; and will he take steps to ensure that equal facilities are made available.

Sir J. Grigg: There is a shortage in this country of highly trained operators and of specialized technical equipment. Moreover for the long distance transmissions to the United States the Americans can use frequencies which are not available for transmission to the United Kingdom. The operational traffic necessary to win the battle must have first call on the limited means of communication available. But, in fact, three-quarters of the high speed wireless transmission from our


forces in North West Europe and all the high speed teleprinter circuits are used exclusively by the Press. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that in the circumstances this is not an ungenerous allocation.

Mr. Craik Henderson: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, as far as it goes, is he aware of the considerable discontent which is felt with regard to this matter, and of the great importance to this country of getting at least equally rapid transmission of news? Will he do everything possible to hurry it up?

Sir J. Grigg: I entirely agree. There is only one thing to put ahead of that, and that is the rapid transmission of operational orders.

Nursing Sisters (Period of Service)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War why it has been found necessary to apply the five year period of service to army nursing sisters and to no other class of women serving with His Majesty's Forces.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret as much as the hon. Member the necessity for keeping nursing sisters abroad for so long. This is due to the shortage of nursing sisters in this country to take the place of those overseas. Five-sixths of the Army Nursing Services are serving abroad and of the members here many are not fit for service overseas or have only lately returned to this country. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the members of this Service. They carry out without complaint their prolonged and arduous duties overseas and in many cases when they are brought back to this country they volunteer for a further tour abroad.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the particularly arduous nature of certain theatres of war, would my right hon. Friend consider cross-posting them as between overseas theatres?

Sir J. Grigg: I am bound to say that it is a new suggestion which I have not considered. I will certainly look into it to see whether it is practicable.

Miss Ward: Would my right hon. Friend consider giving them better rates of pay?

Attachés (Scientific Qualifications)

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in

appointing attachés to embassies and legations overseas, any regard is had to the scientific or technical qualifications of the officers concerned; and whether, in view of the increased importance of scientific developments in warfare, he is satisfied that sufficient attention is being paid to this matter.

Sir J. Grigg: Officers appointed as military attachés to embassies and legations overseas, are being selected for their general military qualifications, which include an up-to-date knowledge of scientific and technical developments.

Requisitioned Houses, London (Release)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of delay caused in the derequisitioning of houses by lack of staff, he will give instructions that owing to the material damage done to the London district by flying-bombs, the derequisitioning of houses in London will receive special consideration.

Sir J. Grigg: Instructions to this effect have already been given.

Hospital Patients Overseas (Information to Relatives)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for War if next-of-kin can in future be supplied with the address and location of the hospital overseas when husbands or sons are on the dangerously ill list.

Sir J. Grigg: The notification to the next-of-kin of an officer or man that he is lying dangerously ill in a hospital overseas always includes the postal address of that hospital if, as is generally the case, the report from overseas contains that information. For security reasons the postal address, in the case of a hospital in a theatre of war, does not indicate the exact location, but is, of course, sufficient to enable the next-of-kin to communicate with the individual concerned.

Sir I. Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it causes a sense of frustration to the relatives of men on the dangerously iii list when they receive a notification merely that the man is dangerously ill overseas, with no other indication of his whereabouts?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, but, as I hope I conveyed, I think that must apply in only a very small minority of the cases, and I do not believe they are at all frequent.

Mr. Bossom: Would the right hon. Gentleman state how long is expected to lapse between the time of the casualty and the notification of the next-of-kin?

Sir J. Grigg: The times differ in different theatres. When active operations are going on and communications have to be built up from behind, they take much longer than if you have a more or less stationary position.

Prefabricated Harbours (Exhibition)

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make arrangements for the scale model of the prefabricated harbours in Normandy, together with the photographs and films, to be placed on exhibition at the principal towns and cities in the provinces and see that facilities are provided for the workmen, who by their craft and skill made such a splendid accomplishment possible, to see the exhibition.

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly have the possibility examined.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving priority to those industrial centres responsible for its production? Does he not agree that this is a fine concrete example of British public enterprise?

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the second part of the question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the first, I am not sure that if, for a good many reasons, it does become practicable, an exhibition in the Metropolis is not the surest way of getting an early exhibition of this kind.

Family Allowances

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the effect of 437/44 is to permit the regimental paymaster to inflict financial hardship upon the wife of a soldier after the penalty for any crime has been paid; and whether he will amend this instruction which makes more difficult reconciliation between husband and wife.

Sir J. Grigg: The whole object of this Army Council Instruction is to ensure that every possible effort is made to effect reconciliation between husbands and wives who have become estranged, particularly where such estrangement would result in

the stopping of family allowance. But the regulations necessarily reserve to the Department the right to withhold public money from a woman whose behaviour is a public scandal. The reference in the A.C.I. to this power is only included in order that there shall be no misapprehension as to the regulation on the point. Fortunately the power does not often need to be used.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Regulation is causing anxiety to welfare officers and to voluntary organisations, and is impeding them in their work? Will he look into it from that aspect?

Sir J. Grigg: I have looked into it with some care. The Regulation is applied only in really scandalous cases, such as a woman keeping a brothel, being a prostitute, or being repeatedly convicted of theft, drunkenness; or cruelty to children. I cannot believe that if that knowledge is known to welfare officers, as it must be, that is any excuse for impeding their work.

"Daily Worker" (War Correspondent)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the resolution sent by the Tyldesley Co-operative Society asking that the "Daily Worker" be given the normal facilities extended to many newspapers to have a war correspondent with the armies; and what answer he proposes to give.

Sir J. Grigg: I have received this resolution and I propose to reply to it in tie same way as I have to other very similar ones which I have received through Members of Parliament, namely by referring to the terms of His Majesty's Government's decision as announced in this House by me on 18th January and confirmed by the Prime Minister on 2nd March.

Mr. Tinker: Before the right hon. Gentleman sends replies to these appeals, will he consult the Cabinet, because it was a Cabinet decision and I can well understand that he is bound by that until he puts the case before them again? Will he, therefore, put it before them again and tell them that there is feeling in the country that a war correspondent should be allowed to the "Daily Worker"?

Sir J. Grigg: I take exactly the contrary view.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that since Russia came in on the side of the Allies, all our military information is conveyed directly and officially to Moscow, and that therefore it is quite unnecessary to allow the "Daily Worker" to have a war correspondent?

Mr. Tinker: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to submit the matter to the Cabinet to see if there is any change in their minds?

Sir J. Grigg: From time to time I take such consultation with my colleagues as I think necessary.

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the position of Mr. Dutt, the "Daily Worker" correspondent now in Paris? Is he allowed access to transmission facilities?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down.

Minefield, East Norfolk (Compensation)

Mr. Jewson: asked the Secretary of State for War the grounds on which he is refusing compensation to an East Norfolk farmer, of whom he is aware, who has suffered damage owing to the laying of a minefield on his land, thus preventing the destruction of rabbits.

Sir J. Grigg: As my hon. Friend is aware, this case has been very carefully and sympathetically considered. The military, authorities were carrying out their duties and I am advised that no act has been committed by them which could justify the acceptance of a Common Law claim for compensation.

Privilege Leave

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what were the arrangements for granting privilege leave to members of the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 and 1915; and if similar arrangements are being made now.

Sir J. Grigg: In 1914 and 1915 leave was granted when operational conditions permitted. In quiet periods this worked out at perhaps seven days' leave every six months. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I would refer him to the statement I made in answer to a number of hon. Members on 26th September.

Mr. Bellenger: As my right hon. Friend has given the impression that large-scale preparations are being made in London for the reception of men getting leave from overseas, will he carry the matter a little further and let the troops know that they will also be able to get leave during static periods of warfare?

Sir J. Grigg: I am not prepared, at present, to go beyond the previous answers I have given. Further, when the hon. Members says that I have given such an impression I have done nothing of the sort. It is a certain number of imaginative journalists who have given that impression.

Overseas Service (Home Postings)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether full consideration has been given to the desirability of treating the repatriation of soldiers with over three years' continuous service overseas as a matter of more urgent importance than that of demobilisation.

Sir J. Grigg: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member has in mind as obviously demobilisation, by which he presumably means release, does not call for action until after Germany has been defeated. But I can certainly give the hon. Member an assurance that no resources, whether of man-power or shipping, are at present being diverted from purposes of repatriation to release. In the period between the defeat of Germany and that of Japan, there will be a re-allocation of the nation's man-power resources, including those of the Army. There will be many conflicting claims on those resources but the repatriation of men with long service overseas will remain urgent and important. Most of these men will clearly fall into the earlier release groups.

Mr. Hammersley: While thanking my right hon. Friend for those assurances, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a prevalent feeling in this country that there are in training establishments here a large number of officers and men who would welcome the opportunity of serving overseas, thus giving those who have been abroad so long a chance to come back an leave?

Sir J. Grigg: Oddly enough, the training establishments at home are among the places to which I have devoted some


attention, but I think the estimate of the people immediately available for overseas service is very much exaggerated as they consist very largely of people who are recovering after being wounded and those who have actually been repatriated from overseas.

Requisitioned Hotels

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War how many hotels are still requisitioned by his Department in Scarborough, Cromer, Margate, Folkestone, Hastings, Eastbourne and Bournemouth, respectively.

Sir J. Grigg: I am obtaining this information and will then communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Camps, Germany (Air Raids)

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that the Germans are continuously placing British prisoners of war near legitimate military targets in contravention of Article 9 of the Geneva Convention, and refuse to comply with demands from the Protecting Power to abstain, he will put pressure on the Germans by retaliation of the same kind.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. Such action would not be in the interests of our prisoners in Germany. Not many of the camps where they are held are near legitimate military targets, but in all such cases we have protested to the German authorities. Their attitude has not always been satisfactory, but in some instances the prisoners have been moved and His Majesty's Government will continue to press for the observance of the Geneva Convention.

Malaya (Messages)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that a number of relatives of prisoners of war in Malaya are not conversant with them, he will take steps to publicise the facilities which now exist for sending messages to prisoners of war in Malaya, via the All-India Radio Messages Service, Bantony, Simla.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. and

gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) on 9th June.

Mr. De la Bère: But will my right hon. Friend tell us whether this is really known to relatives and friends, who have dependants in Malaya?

Sir J. Grigg: This is a service from India, and I said in the last two sentences of the answer I gave then:
This service is of doubtful value, and open to serious objection on security grounds. It is being curtailed, and may be discontinued altogether."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 1653–4.]

Parcels

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War when it is expected safe conduct will be obtained to convey the 12,000 tons of parcels for prisoners of war at Götenburg to German ports.

Sir J. Grigg: A Swedish ship is about to sail with approximately 1,000 tons of supplies and the International Red Cross Committee are hoping to arrange for further shipments.

Sir A. Knox: Are these being transferred to Germany now?

Sir J. Grigg: I really do not understand the question. As I have said, a Swedish ship is about to sail with approximately 1,000 tons of supplies, I presume to Germany.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, as the Marseilles-Geneva railway is reported to be working again, transports with the 1,500,000 parcels accumulated at Lisbon have sailed from there to Marseilles.

Sir J. Grigg: I anticipate that sailings of Red Cross ships from Lisbon to Marseilles will be resumed at an early date. I am in touch with the military authorities at Marseilles with a view to restoring the full flow of prisoner of war supplies to Geneva as rapidly as the needs of the military situation will permit.

Sir A. Knox: But what is the cause of this delay? There has been a definite shortage of parcels in Germany but railway transport has been open for some time.

Sir J. Grigg: I imagine that delay is caused by the volume of military traffic required to pass through the Port of Marseilles.

Sunk Japanese Transports (Casualties)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for War how many war prisoners were saved from the Japanese transport ship sunk recently; from which camp the prisoners came; whether the names of those on board, but not saved, are known; and, if so, whether the next-of-kin have been informed.

Sir J. Grigg: 60 prisoners of war from the United Kingdom and 91 from Australia were rescued by American naval forces from a sinking which occurred in September, and I should like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the hazardous rescues carried out by the officers and men of those forces. Most of the prisoners from this country came from Camp No. 4 in Thailand and most of them were originally captured at Singapore. Next-of-kin of the survivors have been informed. An official list of those who were on the transport has not been received from the Japanese authorities but the Protecting Power is urging them to forward such a list. The rescued men have meanwhile been asked for all the information they have and next-of-kin will be informed in cases where the facts can be established with reasonable certainty. Reports of an earlier sinking in June have now reached His Majesty's Government for the first time from the Japanese Government through the International Red Cross Committee. It is known that 177 officers and men from the United Kingdom lost their lives. Details are not yet complete, but the next-of-kin of those concerned will be informed as soon as possible. The circumstances in these cases are most distressing and I should like to express my deep sympathy with the next-of-kin of the prisoners of war who are affected.

Mr. Morrison: Would my right hon. Friend publish a further statement when he has more information?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, if it is of general interest; I would not like to guarantee to publish a statement if it is concerned solely with individual circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (BRIDGE STREET ENTRANCE)

Sir D. Hacking: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant permission to have removed the concrete emplacement on the south side of Bridge Street, Westminster, thus enabling the pre-war entrance from Bridge Street to the Palace of Westminster to be used.

Sir J. Grigg: There is no longer any objection to the removal of this emplacement.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED PROPERTY (REINSTATEMENT)

Wing-Commander James: asked the Prime Minister if the Service Departments are giving consideration to the closing down and clearing up of sites and aerodromes no longer needed for the prosecution of the war, with a view to restoring the land and also rendering available for other purposes the great quantities of material, much of which is in short supply, for other reconstruction.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The Departments concerned are giving urgent consideration to this matter and where defence requirements and the labour situation permit, action to re-instate or to pay compensation is proceeding. It cannot be assumed that valuable works will in every case be removed, but the whole scene must be watched.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S BADGE (NATIONAL FIRE AND CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES)

Sir I. Albery: asked the Prime Minister if, as a result of further consideration, a decision has now been taken as to the issue of the King's Badge to personnel discharged from the National Fire and Civil Defence Services.

Sir J. Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes shortly to be able to announce a decision.

Sir I. Albery: If I put a Question down again next week might I then receive a reply?

Sir J. Anderson: I think my hon. Friend might try.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (SOVIET GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken in respect of the representation of the Soviet Government in India; what progress has been made; and if no such steps have been taken either by His Majesty's Government or by the Government of India, whether this matter will be taken in hand immediately.

Sir J. Anderson: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the Government of India does not normally exchange diplomatic representatives with foreign powers and it would in any case be for the Soviet Government to raise the matter if they felt that special circumstances existed which made the presence of a Soviet Representative in India desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR FORESTRY POLICY

Mr. J. J. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that although this country has been practically exhausted in respect of full-grown timber during the past five years, there is still no policy for the purpose of replanting forests and woodlands: which Minister is responsible for the Government policy in this respect; and when a full statement of policy will be made.

Sir J. Anderson: The Forestry Commission have submitted two reports on postwar forestry policy, which have been published. They are under consideration, and the Government's decision will be announced in due course. The Treasury has hitherto been responsible for the Vote for the Forestry Commission. The question of future ministerial responsibility is being considered along with the question of policy.

Mr. Lawson: Can the House expect an early statement of the Government's policy?

Sir J. Anderson: That is certainly my hope.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that until some announcement is made, private planting will be entirely held up?

Sir J. Anderson: I know that my right hon. Friend has the matter very much under his consideration.

Mr. Kirkwood: Have the Government got a policy in connection with this matter?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FUEL RESOURCES (SURVEY)

Mr. Salt: asked the Lord President of the Council what progress is being made with the national coal survey; and to what extent it has been extended to include all sources of energy and carbon compounds such as petroleum, lignite, peat, wood and charcoal.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): In the absence of the Lord President, I have been asked to reply. Over a number of years, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, through the Physical and Chemical Survey of the National Coal Resources of the Fuel Research Organisation and the Geological Survey, has obtained data on the quality of the coal of the majority of the seams of this country and on their extent. Recently, in association with the Coal Commission and the Ministry of Fuel and Power considerable progress has been made with a survey to determine the amounts and qualities of our workable reserves of coal. It is intended to undertake more detailed surveys as necessary.
The exploration of the petroleum resources of this country is being carried out by various oil companies under licences from the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Only approximate data is available about the resources of lignite, peat, wood and charcoal, but these materials are economically of very much less importance than coal in this country. Special attention has been paid during the war to these materials as sources of carbon compounds.

Mr. Woodburn: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend take steps to see that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research goes closely into this question of peat, as there are great resources of it which may be very valuable in years to come if use can be found for it?

Mr. Salt: asked the Lord President of the Council if he can give full and


detailed particulars as to the research and development work now being carried out or planned in the United Kingdom into the more efficient utilisation of coal both as a source of fuel and as a raw material for the chemical industry; what is the present approximate expenditure on such work; and to what extent it is being held up by shortage of staff and equipment.

Major Lloyd George: In the absence of the Lord President, I have been asked to reply. In view of the length of the reply I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Research and development work into the more efficient utilisation of coal both as a source of power and as a raw material for the chemical industry is being conducted by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, by industrial research associations and by the research departments of many individual firms. Plans for the expansion of this work after the war are being drawn up by that Department, by the research associations concerned, and, I understand, by a number of firms. The work of the Government and the research associations is being co-ordinated by the Standing Consultative Conference on Fuel Research recently set up by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on which the Ministry of Fuel and Power is represented.

It is not possible to give full and detailed particulars of the work being done in this very wide field within the scope of an answer of this kind, but my right hon. Friend will be glad to show my hon. Friend the work being done by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and to invite the research associations concerned to do the same.

The estimated gross expenditure of the Fuel Research Organisation of the Department of Scientific and industrial Research for the current year is of the order of £145,000. In addition the total approximate annual expenditure by the three research associations most concerned, British Coal Utilisation Research Association, Gas Research Board, Coke Research Association, is at present about £300,000, of which about £63,000 is provided by the Government. Other bodies, such as the Electrical and Allied Industries Research Association and the Iron and Steel Re-

search Council devote part of their efforts to work in this field. I have no estimate of the expenditure on this work incurred by individual firms. In present circumstances this work is, of course, considerably restricted by the need to devote available facilities to more urgent problems of war importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Plays, London (Entertainments Duty)

Professor Savory: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plays now running in London are exempt from Entertainments Duty; on what grounds are they so exempted; what is the body and who are the members of that body empowered to judge the grounds of exemption of plays from Entertainment Duty; and by what procedure is such judgment arrived at.

Sir J. Anderson: As the answer involves a somewhat lengthy statement I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Professor Savory: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending this concession to all bona fide plays, as distinct from musical comedies, ballets and pantomimes in order to encourage the real drama?

Mr. De la Bère: There is plenty of real drama here.

Following is the answer:

The following plays now running in London have been exempted from Entertainments Duty under the statutory provision relating to entertainments provided for partly-educational purposes by a society, institution or committee not conducted or established for profit:

"Hamlet."
"Love for Love" (Congreve).
"The Circle" (Somerset Maugham). "Richard III."
"Peer Gynt."
"Arms and the Man."
"Scandal at Barchester" (V. Wheatley's adaptation from Trollope).
"The Breadwinner" (Somerset Maugham).
"The Importance of being Earnest" (Oscar Wilde).
"Charming Leandre" (Th. de Banville).
"The Jubilee" (Tchekov).
"The Pariah" (Strindberg).

The responsibility for granting or refusing exemption under this provision rests upon the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, who are advised on the educational quality of plays by an Advisory Committee appointed by my predecessor. As was announced at the time, it consists of Sir Ernest Pooley, Sir Gerald Canny and Dr. T. H. W. Armstrong.

Excess Profits Tax (Profits Standards)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the great difficulty of industrialists on the North-East coast who, owing to the years of depression, have a low-profits standard of finding the capital necessary to re-equip and expand their works in preparation for the post-war period; and is he prepared, in the interests of the future of this area, to take steps to equalise the position.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of the Excess Profits Tax law enabling a substituted standard to be claimed in cases where the profits of the standard period were so low as not to provide a just standard, and to the further provision for repayment after the war of the Excess Profits Tax post-war credit. That credit is intended to be available to meet post-war capital expenditure, including expenditure on re-equipment and expansion of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that industrialists in these special development areas do not consider that the present financial arrangements are satisfactory? Will he kindly look into the whole question again?

Sir J. Anderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am constantly looking at the whole question. I am not aware that industrialists generally regard the position as so unsatisfactory as my hon. Friend's question seems to indicate.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries again?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly.

National Debt

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £24,000,000,000 required for the five years of war has been met by taxation and how much by borrowing; and what

is the total of the National Debt now and the increase since the war started.

Sir J. Anderson: As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 20th October last, the figure of £24,000,000,000 is the figure of our total expenditure during the five years of war up to 2nd September, 1944; the amount of expenditure on war services in the same period was approximately £20,000,000,000. Of the total expenditure in the first five years of war, £11,234,000,000 was met by taxation and other revenue and £12,659,000,000 by borrowing. The total of the National Debt at 30th September, 1944, was approximately £21,200,000,000, an increase of £12,800,000,000 since the beginning of the war.

Mr. Bowles: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the period in office of the Conservative Party for the eight years before the war was very expensive indeed?

Post-War Revenue and Expenditure (Estimate)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the estimates of the post-war revenue and expenditure, on which were based the proposed new expenditure arising in connection with the Education Act and the proposed Social Insurance Scheme.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. As I informed my hon. Friend on the 5th October, it would be premature for me to attempt a statement on the lines of a future normal Budget, and the considerations relevant to what he now suggests are very much the same.

Sir H. Williams: I take it that the statement of the Lord Chancellor was totally inaccurate, that the Cabinet considered these matters before they approved of certain legislation?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend should not jump to these hasty conclusions.

Sir H. Williams: As the Lord Chancellor stated that in the economy Debate, surely I was not jumping.

Mr. Woodburn: In the event of such a Budget being compiled, will the credit side be taken into account, such as the


improvement in health and the elimination of disease?

Sir J. Anderson: We are getting on to very debatable ground.

Treasury Obligations

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can furnish an estimate of the obligations of the Treasury in excess of the National Debt, as stated on page 6 of the Financial Statement, 1944–45, in respect of Income Tax postwar credits, Excess Profits post-war credits, accrued interest in respect of National Savings Certificates and sterling credits to the account of the Government of India and of other British and foreign governments.

Sir J. Anderson: As regards the post-war credits, I would refer my hon. Friend to the note to Table II on page 4 of the Financial Statement, 1944–45. The interest accrued on National Savings Certificates up to the 31st March, 1944, was £223,000,000. Sterling balances held by overseas countries, though they represent a liability from the point of view of our national economy, are not direct obligations of the Treasury nor do the balances themselves form part of the National Debt in the technical sense of the term. A large portion of these balances has, of course, been invested directly or indirectly in short-term Government securities, which already form part of the National Debt.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that we have incurred some thousands of millions of expenditure overseas which has been met by foreign and Empire Governments, and have incurred a debt to them which does not appear in our obligations? We have incurred expenditure without sanction from the House.

Sir J. Anderson: I do not take that view.

Sir H. Williams: The expenditure has been incurred and it has not been sanctioned.

Sir J. Anderson: It has all been sanctioned.

Sir I. Albery: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definition of the difference between a technical debt and one that is not technical?

Sir J. Anderson: What I said was that they are not technically debts due by the Government, but debts due by one central bank to another, for example.

Post-War Credits (Wives)

Mrs. Tate: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are already cases of husbands who are in receipt of their wives' post-war credits refusing to hand them over; and if he will take steps to ensure that wives have, in these cases, power to obtain possession of their own money.

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend has, no doubt, in mind the issue of post-war credit certificates, for under the provisions of Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1941, the post-war credit itself is not payable till after the termination of hostilities. Where the wife has income it is not necessary for her to secure her husband's agreement before claiming a division of the post-war credit. Although the certificate of post-war credit for the year is sent to the husband in the first instance it is open to the wife, if she has income of her own, to apply to the Inspector of Taxes for the credit to be divided between them. It is then divided in whatever proportion the husband and wife agree upon if they choose to make it a matter of agreement; otherwise it is divided in the manner set out in Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1941, that is to say in proportion to their respective incomes. A leaflet explaining the wife's right to claim a division of the post-war credit is sent to married women in employment at about the time of issue of the certificates; this leaflet, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, explains the procedure to be followed and incorporates a form of application for a division. I would add that where a division of the post-war credit is claimed the wife is sent a separate certificate for her share.

Mrs. Tate: May I ask my right hon. Friend to be so exceedingly gracious as to put that in very simple language for some of the women who may need it?

Sterling Balances

Mr. Craik Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the total and individual amounts of the blocked sterling balances; in what circumstances these were incurred; and whether he has entered into any agreement with regard to the future of such balances.

Sir J. Anderson: I stated in my Budget speech that we had incurred during the war undischarged overseas liabilities of some £2,000 million. The figure has increased since that date. The greater part of these liabilities represent sterling given in payment for local currencies required for military expenditure in the various countries. These balances are not blocked since they are available to make payment anywhere in the sterling area. In reply to the last part of the Question, I have no statement to make at present.

Sir H. Williams: Do we owe this money to anyone?

Sir J. Anderson: If my hon. Friend places a sufficiently comprehensive interpretation on the word "we," the answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. Craik Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter?

Sir J. Anderson: That does not rest with me.

Great Britain and Eire (Double Taxation Agreement)

Professor Savory: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to revoke the Double Taxation Agreement made between this country and the Irish Free State in 1926, at a period when it was assumed that these privileges were being given to a Dominion which would co-operate with the British Commonwealth of Nations in time of war, seeing that Eire is in diplomatic relations with the enemy and similar privileges are not being accorded to Allies, such as the U.S.A.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) on 6th April last of which I am sending him a copy.

Professor Savory: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is an extremely one-sided arrangement and that the number of British in Eire benefiting by this concession is infinitesimally small?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend is really under a misapprehension. As I explained on a previous occasion, this is a reciprocal arrangement which was considered to be of mutual advantage. It is

not confined to the case of personal in come where, I agree, the movement is predominantly in one direction. It also includes income derived from trade and business, where the current is in the opposite direction.

1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds (New Issue)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about a change in any of the present issues of Government Securities.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The present issue of 2½ per cent. National War Bonds 1952–54, which was originally placed on sale on the 1st September, 1943, has already reached a total of about £690,000,000 and, in accordance with normal practice, the time has come to consider whether it should be replaced by a new issue. The various issues of National War Bonds, which have been on sale for more than four years, have raised altogether no less than £2,800,000,000 and have obviously been a great success. Nevertheless, I think that we might with advantage give this type of issue a short rest, and accordingly the sale of National War Bonds will be discontinued after Monday next, the 6th November.
I have also decided that this period of suspension should be used to offer a new type of bond to those who have funds available for investment but who do not wish to invest for so long a period as that of National War Bonds. On the 7th November, and until further notice, a new security will be on sale and will be known as "1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds, 1950." The bonds will be issued at par and will be repayable at par on the 15th February, 1950. The rate of interest, 1¾per cent. per annum, is the lowest which the Government has offered on a Stock Exchange security during the war, and that fact is, of course, due to the short period of the Bonds. The rate may be compared with the rate of 2 per cent. payable on the Conversion Loan issued in 1940 with a currency of five years. The interest will be payable on the 15th February and 15th August each year. Subscriptions will be accepted in any amount not being less than £50.
It is contemplated that the new issue will remain on tap for a few months only


and that we shall in due course revert to an issue of the type of National War Bonds. No change is proposed in the current issue of 3 per cent. Savings Bonds 1965–75. I confidently appeal for support for the new issue both by financial institutions and by all other businesses and individuals who have funds to subscribe. Our borrowing programme continues to be very heavy and it is most important that the State should be able to borrow for a period of years not only savings out of income but also as much as possible of whatever capital sums are available for investment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can the Chancellor say in what form Income Tax will be payable on this new security?

Sir J. Anderson: It will be deducted at source.

Mr. Bellenger: Should not the policy of the Government be more in the region of longer-dated loans, because it seems to me the Government will have to fund some of this debt? Why has the Chancellor made this change to a shorter-dated security other than to satisfy large capitalists?

Sir J. Anderson: Because I want to mop up as much as I can of still shorter-dated securities.

Berwick-upon-Tweed Development Scheme (Application)

Sir William Beveridge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered an application from a committee of principal citizens of Berwick-upon-Tweed, under the chairmanship of the mayor, for permission to invite subscriptions up to £50,000 to form a finance company to be known as the Berwick-upon-Tweed Development Company, having the object of providing to men of small means, after the war, capital to engage in fishing and other local industries; why this application has been refused; and whether, having regard to the importance of encouraging local initiative in reconstruction and as practically the whole of the capital proposed would be called up only after the war, he will have this refusal reconsidered.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The application was refused because in present circumstances issues to raise capital must, in so far as they are not exempt from

control, be confined to those required to finance production or services essential for war purposes. In reply to the last part of the Question, it would not be practicable to anticipate now the terms and conditions on which consent to issues of capital will be given after the war.

Sir W. Beveridge: If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to allow these citizens to help themselves to provide the money that will be necessary when the war ends, has he any plan for doing it himself?

Sir J. Anderson: The point of my answer was that this project is designed for a post-war purpose and that, for the moment, we have to concentrate on war purposes.

Customs Duties and Purchase Tax (Military Personnel)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether American military personnel returning to this country by air from France are exempt from Customs duties and Purchase Tax to which British military personnel are liable.

Sir J. Anderson: American military personnel arriving in this country from abroad are allowed to bring with them articles intended for their personal use free of Customs Duty and Purchase Tax. It is understood that a similar privilege is allowed in the United States of America to British military personnel on duty there. British military personnel returning to this country from abroad enjoy the usual concessions accorded to all passengers in regard to personal effects brought in their baggage. An additional concession is allowed in regard to Purchase Tax, as explained in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) on the 1st August, 1944.

Mr. Bowles: Is it not a fact that on arrival at an airport near London, British military personnel have to go through the Customs and American military personnel are exempt from any kind of examination at all, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that causes a good deal of unhappiness and discomfort to both Americans and British?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not know why these reactions should result. It is a question of international courtesy which is reciprocal. I feel sure that Customs


officers extend the utmost consideration to military personnel, whether British or American.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. It is not a question of Customs officers being inconsiderate. The British military officials felt unhappy about it, and so did the Americans, because the British had to go through the Customs and not the others.

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think there is any substantial ground for the feeling.

Captain Poole: Seeing that British personnel who land in America are compelled to go through the American Customs, can there be any lack of courtesy in compelling American personnel to go through the same process here?

Sir J. Anderson: I have said that a similar courtesy is extended to British military personnel in America.

Captain Poole: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, because I think he will find that that is not true?

Mr. John Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the payment of Purchase Tax by troops sending goods back to their relatives at home is deeply resented?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a separate question, but having regard to the concessions that have been made there is no real ground for resentment. It is not a question here merely of the interests of the troops. We have also to consider the question of the producers of British goods on which tax has to be paid.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Ministerial Salaries

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of new Ministries established since the outbreak of war; the total number of Ministers of all ranks in September, 1939, and at present, respectively, with the total annual amount of salaries paid at both dates.

Sir J. Anderson: Since the answer is necessarily rather long, containing a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Is the length of the answer determined by the increase in the number of Ministries, and will the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT include the new Ministries of Social Security and for Civil Aviation?

Sir J. Anderson: I think the hon. Member must await the statement.

Sir H. Williams: Will the statement indicate which Minister looks after the sterling balances?

Following is the answer:

In answer to the first part of the Question, there are now eight Departments in being which did not exist before the war. This number does not include Departments which existed pre-war but which have since taken on enlarged duties, in some cases with a change of title; nor does it take account of the several newly-appointed Ministers, at home and abroad, who are not at the head of a Department in the ordinary sense.

In answer to the second part of the Question, the position is as follows:



Ministers. (1)
Parliamentary Secretaries. (2)
Total Salaries payable annually.(1)+(2)





£


Pre-War (1939)
26
24
163,000


Present
39
40
244,000

Revenue Staffs (Examinations)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that men now serving with the Forces, who were successful candidates at the first part of the examinations held in 1939 for appointments as officers of customs and excise and inspectors of taxes, have been unable to ascertain whether the second part of the examinations will be held after the war; and, since they are entitled to a definite answer in order to determine their course of action in preparation for returning to civilian life, whether he can now state what the Civil Service Commissioners' intentions are.

Mr. Peake: I am aware of the position. The Civil Service Commissioners hope to make an announcement about these particular men in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — HANSARD (SECONDARY SCHOOLS)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make it possible for secondary schools to Obtain copies of HANSARD for their libraries at the reduced rate now available for rate-aided public libraries.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Osbert Peake): No, Sir, I regret I am unable to accept this suggestion. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware the war-time production facilities for HANSARD are so restricted that I cannot encourage a large circulation to secondary schools on a subsidised basis.

Commander King-Hall: While regretting this unfortunate start to what, I hope, will be a successful career, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is not aware that there is no difficulty in producing further copies of HANSARD a day late and that that would meet the requirements of the libraries of secondary schools? Is it not desirable that secondary school libraries should have HANSARD for the use of teachers for reference and for children in the upper forms?

Mr. Peake: I think there is room for some dubiety as to the appetite for HANSARD of school children of 11 years and upwards, but at the present time, I am informed, it is impossible greatly to augment the production of HANSARD.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not far more important that these facilities should be available for the reading rooms of Air Force stations where a report of a Debate in the House of Commons was cut out of the "Daily Telegraph" of last Friday?

Mr. Peake: That is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (PRISON SENTENCE)

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary for State for Scotland if he is taking any steps to have Mr. Douglas Young, chairman of the Scottish Nationalist Party, released from prison.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): No, Sir. I am not a count of appeal against decisions of the law courts and I have no authority to review or override their decisions. A recommendation for the exercise of the pre-

rogative of mercy could only be appropriately made if there were adduced any relevant facts or circumstances not fully before the courts at the time of sentence or if there could be provided an assurance that Mr. Young is now prepared in common with other citizens to comply with directions under the National Service Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Leave to the Select Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 113.]

DEATH OF HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS BEATRICE

12.5 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice; and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to assure His Majesty that this House will ever participate with the most affectionate and dutiful attachment in whatever may concern the feelings and interests of His Majesty.
The death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice, youngest and last surviving child of Queen Victoria, closes a chapter in the history of the Royal House and evokes memories of that famous and placid era of peace and progress, which is called the Victorian Age. By the public the Princess will be chiefly remembered for her close association with Queen Victoria; as a child, in married life, and as a widow, she was the Queen's constant companion on private and public occasions and it was to her that the Queen bequeathed the manuscript of her private journal. Moreover she was confirmed in the public regard by the severe personal loss, first of her husband, Prince Henry of Battenberg, who died in the second Ashanti war, and then of her son, Prince Maurice, who died of wounds in France in 1914. The Princess was interested in many works of beneficence, chiefly perhaps in ex-Servicemen, for whom, from her own personal sorrow, she had a keen natural sympathy.
She long held the position of Governor and Captain of the Isle of Wight, in which office she succeeded her husband, and she gained the affection in very great measure, and the regard of the whole community in the island, in which she had spent many happy days during her early residence there, at Osborne, with her mother.
The House will no doubt wish to take this opportunity of expressing their deep sympathy with her children, Her Majesty the Queen Dowager Victoria Eugenie of Spain and the Marquess of Carisbrooke.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: My right hon. Friend, with his usual felicity and dignity of language, has, I

am certain, expressed the views of all Members of the House. As he rightly says, the last link with the great Victorian Age has now been broken, and the Royal Family are mourning a great lady whose interest in the social wellbeing of our people was well known. I am sure we all share the feeling of loss which her passing has brought to His Majesty and all members of the Royal Family.

Sir Percy Harris: May I be allowed to associate myself and my friends with the eloquent tribute made by the Prime Minister? It so well expressed the feelings of the House, and of all of us, that I do not feel it necessary to add anything, except to say how much my hon. Friends and I join in it.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Lambert: As one who sat in a Parliament summoned by Queen Victoria over 50 years ago, and who had the privilege of moving the Address in reply to Her Gracious Speech in the last Parliament of Mr. Gladstone, I should like to associate my hon. Friends and myself with the expression of sympathy with the Royal Family. The parallel between Princess Beatrice and her Royal Mother is very exact. Both died, not in the sunshine of peace, but in the rumbling of cannon and the lowering clouds of war. The Princess has died during this convulsion, at the end of which a period of peace has yet to come; Queen Victoria died in the midst of the South African war. At the end of that unhappy season, owing to the wisdom of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, a great act of reconciliation was made. May I digress for a moment to recall, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most potent advocates of Sir Henry's policy then was a young stripling who had just come into the House of Commons quite early? Hon. Members will be familiar with his name—Winston Spencer Churchill. Let us hope that that is a happy augury of Divine Providence and that he will be granted health, strength and good fortune to lay the foundations of an edifice of lasting peace for mankind.

12.11 p.m.

Captain Peter Macdonald: We have just heard from the Prime Minister, and other right hon. Gentlemen, most moving and eloquent


tributes to the Royal Lady whose death we all mourn. Where I had the opportunity of observing and admiring the great qualities of this Royal Lady was in my constituency, the Isle of Wight, Where she was brought up and where her passing will be poignantly felt by all classes of the community. There, as has been said, she was Governor and Captain but she was more than that; she was a leader and an inspiration of all good causes connected with the island, from the Territorial regiment that bore her name, to the work of the most humble village institute. Having lost a husband and a son in the service of the country she had an unbounded sympathy for all those who suffered in a similar way. Although she had to endure great mental and physical suffering in her later years, she never complained or relaxed her interest in the good causes with which she was associated. By her noble and unselfish life, she has set an example to future generations, and by her death we have lost a memorable link with a great Queen whose dignified reign brought honour and glory to Britain and the British Empire; while the Isle of Wight has lost a Governor and friend, whose place it will be difficult to fill.

Question put, and agreed to, nemine contradicente.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice; and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to assure His Majesty that this House will ever participate with the most affectionate and dutiful attachment in whatever may concern the feelings and interests of His Majesty.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.14 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In asking for a prolongation of the life of this Parliament for another year, I doubt very much whether the Parliament will last so long. There are powerful factors of uncertainty which tell in opposite directions, or from different angles. The meetings of the various parties comprising the Coalition are to take place shortly before and shortly after Christmas, and while we cannot at all forecast what will occur, we certainly cannot exclude the possibility that a desire to return to the party system will be strongly expressed. On the other hand we cannot tell when the war against Nazi Germany will be definitely ended or will fall into the guerilla stage.
I am confident that all organised parties will see that business through to the very end. This would almost certainly be the view, I believe, of the great trade union movement, where determination to finish Hitlerism is strong and invincible. I am very clearly of opinion that the coalition of parties ought not to be broken before Nazidom is broken. This was the purpose for which we came together in the present National Government, and it is still the supreme purpose which affects the safety of the nation and the Empire. As I said the other day, any attempt to estimate the date when the war with Germany can be officially declared over can be no more than a guess. A political convulsion in Germany might bring it to a speedy end at any time, but against that must be set the iron control of German life in all its forms, including the Army, Which has been established by Hitler's storm troops and secret police. This exceeds anything previously known among men. Therefore, we cannot count upon any of the normal reactions of public opinion. From every quarter it seems that the civil population are plunged in a dull apathy, and certainly anyone who


stirred against the police would instantly be shot or decapitated. Therefore I simply cannot place any dependence upon political uprisings in Germany.
On military grounds it seems difficult to believe that the war could be ended before Christmas, or even before Easter, although, as I have said, many high military authorities with every means to form a correct judgment have expressed themselves more hopefully, and although every effort is being made, and will be made against the enemy. The German troops are fighting with the utmost tenacity, although cut off in many places, and in defence of positions evidently forlorn. They have been counter-attacking with vigour, though as yet without success, in Holland and on the Moselle. A great deal of work has still to be done to improve the ports and build up supplies and concentrate forward the ever-growing Allied Armies. In Italy the fighting is also of the most obstinate character and the weather has broken. The Eastern front has shown its main activity on the North and South flanks. Immense successes have rewarded strenuous Russian military efforts and skilful Russian and Ailed diplomacy. The distances are however very large and many hostile defence positions have to be stormed or turned. In all these circumstances I certainly could not predict, still less guarantee, the end of the German war before the end of the spring, or even before we reach the early summer. It may come earlier, and no one will rejoice more than I if it should. Anyhow I have no hesitation in declaring that it would be a wrongful act, unworthy of our country's fame, to break up the present governing instrument before we know where we are with Hitler's Germany. Those who forced such a disaster, even thoughtlessly, would take on themselves a measureless responsibility, and their action would be fiercely resented by the nation at large. I am thankful to say that there are no signs of any such desire in any responsible quarter.
Let us assume, however, that the German war ends in March, April or May, and that some or all the other parties in the Coalition recall their Ministers out of the Government, or wish to bring it to an end from such dates. That would be a matter of regret, both on public and on personal grounds, to a great many people, but it would not be a matter of reproach

or bitterness between us in this Government or in this House once Germany has been defeated
We are told there must on no account be what is called a "coupon" election. By that I presume is meant an agreement between the official parties not to oppose each other in most of the seats, and to form a solid front against those who criticise or oppose us. In other words, it would mean that the present Coalition should go to the country and obtain from it a renewal of confidence. I have no doubt they would get it, but there would be some who would say it was too easy. But one must admit that many people would think this would hardly be a fair way of testing opinion in the country, and in fact it would be quite impossible to obtain party agreement to such a course. Many people feel that it would impede the electorate in expressing their free choice. Neither would it be seemly, or indeed practicable, once a dissolution had been announced, for Ministers to go all over the country expressing the utmost distaste for each other's views and records and yet be together in Cabinet discussing as colleagues all the gravest matters of the hour. Nor again would it be proper for the Ministers who are also in some cases leaders and whose knowledge is needed to guide the country, to remain silent and apparently indifferent to the fortunes of their parties or of their candidates. I do not find it easy to escape from the weight and force of these arguments.
The announcement of the dissolution would therefore necessarily mark the close of the present Administration. The Conservative Party have a majority of more than 100 above all parties and independents in the present House, and it would therefore fall to us to make arrangements for the inevitable General Election. I cannot conceive that anyone would wish that election to be held in a violent hurry or while we were all rejoicing together and rendering thanks to God for our deliverance. There must be an interval. Moreover we have above all things to be careful that practically everybody entitled to vote has a fair chance to do so. This applies above all to the soldiers, many of whom are serving at great distances from this country. Nothing would be more shameful or more dishonourable than to deny the great mass of the soldiers, and


Service men of the Air Force and of the Navy, a full opportunity of recording their votes. In my opinion they have more right to vote than anyone else in the country, and we should all be ashamed if anything were done which prevented these men, to whom we owe almost everything, from taking their full part in deciding the immediate future of their country. That is not to say that every single man in the most remote station can be certain of being able to vote, but everything in human power will be done to give the fullest possible opportunities for the exercise of the franchise to all in the Fighting Services.
It is however in fact not legally possible, after the new electoral arrangements have come into force, as they do on 1st December this year, for polling to take place in less than eight weeks from the issue of the writs. A minimum of six weeks must in fact elapse between the issue of the writs and the nomination of candidates alone. All this has been concerted with a general measure of assent by the House, and with the sole view of obtaining the fullest and fairest expression of the national opinion. Besides all this the partial redistribution authorised by the recent Act has to be carried through. A start will be made immediately, not waiting for the end of the German war, but the process will certainly take several months.
It may therefore be taken as certain that from the moment the King gives his consent to a dissolution a period of between two and three months would be required. This also would be fair to the political parties and candidates, who have to set about one another in the usual lusty manner. Moreover, in the interval there will undoubtedly have to be certain financial arrangements made and other matters of business wound up. It follows therefore that if events should take the course I have indicated it would seem that, roughly speaking, there is no likelihood of a General Election for from seven to nine months from now. Finally, it is contrary to precedent for Governments to hold on to office until the last moment of their legal tenure, or legally extended tenure, and it would be very unwholesome for any practice of that kind to be introduced. For these reasons we have decided not to accept any proposals or suggestions such as I have seen bruited about to reduce the period in the Bill

from 12 months to six months, and I ask to-day, in introducing it, for a 12 months' prolongation of the life of the present Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will be in charge of the Bill, will deal with any points of detail which may arise.
We think that we have given good reasons to the House to show that the 12 months period would be a reasonable and proper provision to make at the present time. On the other hand we must assume that the Japanese war will have to be carried on for an indefinite period after the destruction of Nazi power. Here again there may be the possibilities of some political upheaval in Japan inducing a sudden surrender, but it would be very foolish to count upon this in a race of men of this desperate and barbarous character, whose whole Constitution is dominated by the military and naval hierarchies who dragged them into their mad aggression. When the whole of the Japanese problem is examined, on military grounds alone it would certainly not be prudent to assume that a shorter period than 18 months after the destruction of Hitler would be required for the final destruction of the Japanese will or capacity to fight, and this period must be continually revised every few months by the Combined Chiefs of Staffs.
The prolongation of the life of the existing Parliament by another two or three years would be a very serious constitutional lapse. Even now, no one under 30 has ever cast a vote at a General Election, or even at a by-election, since the registers fell out of action at the beginning of the war. Therefore, it seems to me that, unless all political parties resolve to maintain the present Coalition until the Japanese are defeated, we must look to the termination of the war against Nazism as a pointer which will fix the date of the General Election. I regret the break-up of the present highly efficient Government which have waged war with unsurpassed success and have shaped or carried out within the last two years a programme of reform and social progress which might well have occupied a whole Parliament under the ordinary conditions of peace for five or six years. In fact, I may say—and I will indeed be quite candid on this point—that having served for 42 years in this House I have never seen any Government to which I have been able to give a more loyal, confident and


consistent support. But while I should regret and deplore the break-up of these forces, so knit together by personal good will, by the comradeship of fighting a great cause, and by the sense of growing success arising from that comradeship, yet I could not blame anyone who claimed that there should be an appeal to the people once the German peril is removed. Indeed, I have myself a clear view that it would be wrong to continue this Parliament beyond the period of the German war.
The foundation of all democracy is that the people have the right to vote. To deprive them of that right is to make a mockery of all the high-sounding phrases which are so often used. At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making -a little cross on a little bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly palliate the overwhelming importance of that point. The people have the right to choose representatives in accordance with their wishes and feelings, and I cannot think of anything more odious than for a Prime Minister to attempt to carry on with a Parliament so aged, and to try to grapple with the perplexing and tremendous problems of war and peace, and of the transition from war to peace, without being refreshed by contact with the people or without being relieved of any special burdens in that respect.
I can assure the House that in the absence of most earnest representations by the Labour and Liberal Parties, I could not refrain from making a submission to the Crown in respect of a dissolution after the German war is effectively and officially finished. I am sure this is a straight-forward, fair and constitutional method of dealing with what is in many ways an unprecedented situation though not one which need in any way baffle our flexible British system. Meanwhile, I must confess that the position will not become increasingly easy. The odour of dissolution is in the air, and parties are inclined to look at each other across the House with an increasing sense of—

Mr. Kirkwood: Distrust?

The Prime Minister: —impending division.

Mr. Kirkwood: Of distrust.

The Prime Minister: Well, of distrust in some aspects, and of regret for impending division in others. But we have to be specially careful in such circumstances that nothing should hamper the vigorous prosecution of the war, and that, I am sure, is the resolve of all parties and also of most of those individuals who are specially interested to bring the Coalition to an end.
I thought it right as a preface to this Bill, in moving the Second Reading of it, to touch upon these matters because they are after all of very considerable importance to our constitutional procedure, but further than this I find it impossible to form an opinion. Mr. Jorrocks said of fox-hunting that it was the image of war without its guilt and ½ per cent. the danger. Something like that might be said of a General Election. It is a trial of strength between parties of which the nation is the arbiter. I have often thought that it is sometimes unwise of generals to try to foresee with meticulous exactness just what will happen after a battle has been fought. A battle hangs like a curtain across the future. Once that curtain is raised or rent we can all see how the scenery is arranged, what actors are left upon the scene and how they appear to be related to one another. In this case it will certainly be much better to wait till the new situation is fully disclosed.
Meanwhile, as we probably have a good many months of the closest comradeship and hardest work before us, and there will be ample opportunity for party oratory, which will necessarily occur between the dissolution and the poll, I should deprecate strongly the over-emphasising of party differences now, and recommend that we all bend ourselves with unflagging energy and unbroken union to the national task.

12.37 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the tone and temper of his speech, and I hope I shall say nothing which will impart into this Debate very narrow considerations. I may say at once that, so far as those for whom I speak are concerned, nothing will deflect us from the most active participation in a victorious end of this war, and whatever the political situation may be, if there is a General Election before the end of the Japanese


war, those for whom I speak will support that Government in a victorious end of the Japanese war. We have never divided this war into two parts. We regard it as one. My party has not played an undistinguished part during the war. Its attitude has always been perfectly clear. If I have spoken strongly on occasions in the House it was only that I was trying to voice the opinion of my hon. and right hon. Friends on these benches in support of a strong policy for ultimate and final victory. We have, as my right hon. Friend said, lived through a Coalition in a way, perhaps, that other countries would find it difficult to do. I do not want to rouse the hostility of my right hon. Friend who is leading the Liberal Party below the gangway, but we are instinctively a two-party country. We have never fallen into the error of some Continental countries, and, because we have been a country of two parties, coalition lies uneasily on our shoulders, but, if I may say so, looking at it now quite objectively, I think this Coalition, on the whole, has worked with conspicuous success, as may be shown by the military situation at the present time.
We do not know, as the Prime Minister has explained to us, when the war with Germany will be over, but it is my own strong conviction that it would be against the national interests if we were to try to prolong this Parliament until the whole of this desperate struggle is finally tidied up. Hon. Members will understand from what I have already said, that whatever the political situation may be after a General Election, if the war still goes on in any part of the world, my hon. Friends will give active support for its successful conclusion. I do not believe that any responsible person in this House desires to see the Coalition Government ended before the Germans are brought to final defeat. That does not necessarily mean that there will not be differences of opinion expressed in this House.
My right hon. Friend, who is perhaps the greatest controversialist of our age, has become extraordinarily timid about controversy since he has been Prime Minister, and, if I may say so, I can appreciate his reasons. But what was sauce for the goose was also sauce for the gander, and if he is a reformed character I fear that many Members of this House are not. I think we have to face the fact—and I am not saying this in any narrow party spirit

at all—that in the coming months, when we are thinking and talking in the House more about the future, there will be deep differences of opinion expressed. We have had them in the House on a recent Bill which now, happily, is in the House of Lords, and I have not the faintest doubt that in the new Session there may be legislation which my right hon. Friend will hope will not prove to be controversial, but which I am afraid will in many quarters of the House be regarded as controversial. If I may say so, at this stage of the war, when the dark clouds have been dispersed, bitter though the struggle may still be, I do not think my right hon. Friend ought to complain if there is a healthy spot of controversy in the House on issues on which people feel strongly. That, at this stage of the war, will do nothing to impair the spirit of national unity for the pursuit of the war.
I can see a case in those very dark days of 1940 when divisions in this House might have been interpreted as disunity among the people, but that day has gone and I think we can be bold enough, courageous enough, and confident enough at this stage of the war to indulge in a little healthy controversy without in any way breaking anything that looks like being a truce, because there never has been a truce in this Chamber. There has been a common understanding of common problems. Hard things have been said about me from the benches opposite, but I claim the right to say hard things about them should the occasion arise.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend was frank about what might be called a "snap" or "khaki" election depriving people who are fully entitled to vote of the opportunity of exercising their vote. My right hon. Friend did a broadcast about 18 months ago in which he talked about a four years' programme and so on. Some of us were a little uneasy about it. I leave aside my right hon. Friend's reference to myself and to a statement which I had made—a reference which he was quite entitled to make—but we were alarmed about this four years' programme. There can be no coupon election in this country following this war such as we had at the end of the last war. The reason is that it is not primarily the concern of politicians; it is that a successful Government can only be formed on the basis of a free expression


of desire and opinion by the electorate. No party, and certainly. I would be no party to it as regards those for whom I speak, could accept a coupon Election which defeated the objects of a General Election, and, in effect, stabilised the representation in the House broadly in the proportions of parties that have existed for so many years. I am prepared, at the next election, to take a chance. I would not object if we on these benches came back 368 strong instead of 168, but we take our gruel if we come back only with 68 Members. At least the people will have spoken their minds. I am very glad my right hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear we are to have a straightforward election, so that the House can be properly refreshed with the views of those millions of people who up to now have never been able to exercise the vote.
My own party has made its position perfectly clear on this matter. We say that
nothing must be allowed to conflict in any way with the paramount necessity of bringing the war to a speedy and successful conclusion.
We go on to say this, and I associate myself with this statement, that
when the time comes, as come it must, to dissolve what has been a great partnership, the dissolution should be accomplished with the dignity and good feeling that is fitting for those who have together encountered and overcome the greatest danger that our nation has ever had to face. It would be an unworthy thing for so great an adventure to end in squalid bickerings.
I have myself never indulged in personalities in politics. I have even gone so far as never to refer to my opponent by name. That is perhaps carrying it too far. But after people of all parties in this House have worked together, it would be a tragedy if we allowed the next struggle to degenerate into what we call here "squalid bickering." The next Election is to determine the general plan which the people of this country are to follow in the future. It must, therefore, be a conflict of principles, a conflict of sincerely held policies. It must be a fight of brain and principles, and not a struggle of brawn. That does not mean that everybody will be kind to everybody else, but it does mean that when the fight is on, each party will participate in it with the consciousness that they are trying, according to their lights, to shape the future of our land.
There is one point that worries me a little in what my right hon. Friend said about this two to three months' hiatus between the dissolution and the Election. It may be necessary for mechanical reasons; that I am not prepared to argue. But it seems a long time for a political campaign, and if I may say so—again I am not raising this in any party spirit—it does give an initial advantage to the caretaker Government which is in charge during those two or three months. That, I think, is a matter for some consideration. The next point of detail I would make is that I think a year's extension is right. It will probably be the last time this House will be expected to continue the length of its own life. I do not see any point whatever in trying to reduce that period to six months. If it should be that an Election is called for within the year, that Election can well take place, but I think it would be unfortunate if the House were to agree merely to a six months' extension, because there would immediately be imported into this House not a desire for consideration of the matters which ought to be in the King's Speech, whether they are or not, but all Debates would be conducted in an electioneering atmosphere. I would prefer the electioneering to be done on the public platforms outside. I hope that the House will not agree, when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill, to a limited extension of the Prolongation of Parliament Act for six months.
That is all I wish to say. I am glad the Prime Minister has, with great honesty and great straightforwardness, come down and explained what is in his mind. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend would not be guilty of any mean political manoeuvre. I say that, and I believe it, and we are grateful that he has, so to speak, made a clean breast of his intentions. When the battle is on—and it must be a time to which many of us will look forward, and I for my part have suffered from a sense of frustration for five years in never being able to disclose what I think about some hon. Members in this House—I hope it will be conducted forthrightly, but with dignity and honour to our people.

12.57 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: When the Prime Minister announced last Thursday that he himself


would introduce the Prolongation of Parliament Bill, I assumed that he would make an important statement. I proved to be right. Over nine years have elapsed since this Parliament was elected for five years, and on the face of it as we have, year after year, complacently continued our life, there appeared to be something indecent about it, as though we thought it was very right and proper of us to save ourselves from the assaults and thrusts of an Election. The Prime Minister is perfectly right; it has been argued that it would be more proper to extend our life only for six months. I know it has been said that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the great country at the other side of the ocean, the United States of America, have been able, during the present war, to go through all the machinery of an election, and that at the present time not only are the United States re-electing Congress, but are choosing a new President. Superficially there would seem to be a very strong case for a shorter time, and I confess that some of my hon. Friends were attracted to that idea.
I am satisfied however that the Prime Minister has taken the right course in coming to us and asking us to go through the same procedure this year as last, and renewing the life of Parliament for a year. There are many reasons for it. It is quite obvious—I wish I could think otherwise—that we are very far from being through with the war against Germany, and we must prove to the world we are still a united nation behind the Government in our determination to fight for unconditional surrender, and destroy the Nazi menace to the world. It is quite clear, therefore, that while there is this uncertainty it would be unwise and foolish to suggest that an Election is probable in six months. Obviously, we cannot have an Election in the spring. There is the Budget to be faced, and on top of that I deprecate any attempt to have a rush Election. There must be reasonable time. We had a rush Election in 1918, the famous coupon Election. Nobody was satisfied with the result of that Election or wants to have a repetition of that experiment. Nor do we want another Khaki Election as in 1901, which, as the Prime Minister remembers very well, though some younger Members may not do so, resulted in a very unsatisfactory Parliament, and did no good to the Government

that engineered it. It resulted in a very severe defeat for the Conservative Party in the following Election. Therefore, common sense decides that there should be a reasonable period before the nation is plunged into an electoral struggle. But when the Election does come we want a free Election. We want the electorate to have a free choice, with no attempt to dictate.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend means through the party machines?

Sir P. Harris: I mean not a coupon Election by the parties acting together. We want the electorate to have a free choice. We do not want to have an umbrella, either that of the Leader of the Labour Party or that of any other party. We want our own leaders. We want a free contest. As far as we are concerned, therefore, we are all for the suggestion of a reasonable period being allowed to elapse after the end of the war with Germany before a General Election. The nation does not like coalitions [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says "How do you know?" Experience proves that in the end they always turn on coalitions in favour of a free expression of opinion.
I do not want to say any more, except to support the action of the Prime Minister in coming to us and taking us into his confidence. I think he expresses the view of the whole House. As far as the Liberal Party is concerned we shall continue to give our loyal support to the National Government to the end of the war against Germany. I was a direct party to the arrangements for forming the National Government. I was a party to the truce. I am quite unrepentant. I am sure we were right, while this horrible conflict was on, to decide that we should not indulge in the ordinary party fights at by-elections. But when it is necessary to elect a new Parliament there must be a free Election. Each party must be allowed to express its views, to put them before the electors, and the electors must feel when they are charged with the responsibility of electing a Parliament to work out post-war policy, that they have had freedom of choice and that it is not a machine-made election.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I am convinced that the Prime Minister


can count on the whole-hearted support of Members on this side of the House for anything which is connected with the winning of this war. So long as the national interest demands it, so long will the Prime Minister and the Coalition Government have our support. But it is right to point out that in the year 1940 this House was dealing with a very different situation than that with which it is dealing now. Then it was a House of Commons dealing with the war; now we have a House of Commons which is dealing with war merging into peace. It is obvious that there are questions which have to be dealt with which may raise controversy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) says that he likes a "spot of controversy." It is only right for us all, and for the Government, to face the fact that when you have questions of principle raised in this House there will be a tendency to have controversy. To that I do not myself demur at all.
There are three other factors which the House ought to bear in mind. The first is that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party have given notice to quit. I do not object to that in any way, but it is a fact which has to be taken into consideration, and which will no doubt give rise to controversial moments in this House. Secondly, you have as well a large number of Members who have entered this House without controversy at all: one might almost call them co-opted Members. That makes for the necessity as soon as possible for the House to go to the country as early as possible as the Prime Minister has suggested. I ask the Government to bear this in mind. Controversial issues are bound to arise in Bills dealing with the post-war period. The Government must expect these controversies, and must allow the House, particularly in Committee, to have its say in the framing of Bills. That is absolutely vital unless the Government take the line that they do not want controversy, in which case Measures which would inevitably be controversial ought not to be brought forward.

Mr. A. Bevan: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman bring that proposition forward with the same insistence in the case of the Education Bill?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I am sorry; I did not catch the hon. Member's interjection.

Mr. Bevan: In the case of the Education Bill the House, in Committee, by a majority, amended the Bill, and then had to withdraw the Amendment, on the instance of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Those issues arose then almost without warning. I am saying that now with the knowledge of those various factors which I have put forward, we should either have controversy and not mind amending Bills on the Committee stage, or else the Government should decide to have no controversial Measures at all. Nothing else seems to me to be of such importance as the winning of this war at the earliest possible moment. If controversy is going to have an ill effect in that respect, do not let us have controversy. I would only add that, so far as my hon. Friends on this side are concerned, we are in the hands of the Government in this matter. I would emphasise again what is the essential issue that we are out for; it is to support in every way the further conduct of this war to victory.

1.5 p.m.

Sir Lewis Jones: The Prime Minister has impressed, not only on the House of Commons, but, I hope, on the country and on the world generally, that, however successful the Allies may be in these days in the various theatres of war, very strenuous months are in front of us, and that the tasks we have to face are very serious indeed. Glorious pages of British history are being written during these months. Britain's achievements and the achievements of our Allies have been the fruits of magnificent leadership, excellent planning, and the amazing fortitude of our Fighting Services and the civilian population. But these things have been possible only because, during these years of war, there has been this remarkable degree of unity among the various political parties, not only in the House itself but in the country. I doubt very much whether the magnitude of this unity among the people of this country has been fully realised. The immensity of this underlying unity has been obscured by critical speeches, the criticism, no doubt, being very well deserved; but this unity has won the admiration of the whole world, and, more important still, it has been achieved by voluntary means. It was a stupendous expression of the desire of the people of this country, not superimposed upon us from above. It was the result


of the strenuous times in which we live, and it has carried us through very dark and difficult periods. The House realises that it is not only a question of the unity of the House of Commons, but that, behind that, there is this amazing unity of the people in the country. The Prime Minister, in a remarkable speech the other day, said:
Let all hope die in German breasts that there will be the slightest division or weakening among the forces which are closing in upon them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 492.]
One may read into that more perhaps than the Prime Minister meant to convey. We in the British House of Commons, and in Britain generally, should so cement ourselves together in these difficult times as to strike further terror into the hearts of our enemies. They should be shown that we shall remain united until they are completely defeated. There are before us, not only the tasks concerned with the winning of the war, but the tasks relating to the immediate transfer from war to peace. These are vital and urgent. I am satisfied that these post-war policies are the immediate responsibility of the Government, and that the Government should take those responsibilities very seriously to heart. The Government's task is not completed—far from it. I am satisfied that it is the wish of the country that the National Government should not shirk their responsibility for finishing the job. The Prime Minister, some time back, said, "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job." The country gave him the tools and the confidence, and now it is for the Government to carry out their side of the contract, and not to give up their job until we have defeated the enemy. I want to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends here, that we heartily support the Government and the Prime Minister.

1.10 p.m.

Commander King-Hall: My right hon. Friend made a speech to-day of which the outstanding qualities, I think, were his extreme honesty and the straightforward manner in which he put his cards on the table and refused to say anything which could be interpreted as making the speech a party speech or a type of special pleading. But I think his speech revealed the dilemma with which this country is faced at the present time, and which I venture to say, if I may do so without impertinence, is in my right hon. Friend's

mind. As I see the workings of his mind, from the speeches he has made on this subject, there seems to be a conflict between two points of view. There is the point of view of the national leader, and also the point of view of a Member of this House who is also the leader of one of the political parties and who has taken part in some of the great political conflicts of the day. On the one hand, I feel, he has his responsibilities as a national leader; on the other hand, I feel that he must sometimes liken himself to the war horse in Job, who smelleth the battle from afar, and who paweth the ground and saith, "Ha, ha." That, I think, must be in his mind when he talks about the political parties setting about each other in the usual lusty manner.
In both his speech and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) there was, I think, a tendency to think too much of this total war as being something which can be limited within the framework of the military defeat of Germany. I have consistently maintained that it is impossible to cut the war into these sections, and to say that total war ends when Germany has a military defeat. The whole of the post-war problems are so closely linked up with actual operations to-day that I cannot see how they can be separated. I have been consistent in my attitude on this matter. In 1937 I wrote a small pamphlet, entitled "The Future of Party Politics," in which I ventured to say that we were in a crisis then, and that we should have had a National Government then. I mentioned the names of those who I thought should have formed that National Government—they are all in the Cabinet to-day, with one exception. The Nazi menace had become pretty evident then, and the only way in which I think we could have prevented the war would have been for us to have united and have made it clear to the Nazis that we would not stand for the things that they stood for. Now it is a matter of finishing the war. It is not in my opinion essential that we should have national unity in order to finish off the Germans, but it will be much better if we can have that unity. But I feel most strongly that we can never tackle the vast range of post-war problems now looming up before us unless we can preserve this remarkable national unity of which my right hon. Friend has been


the expression and the symbol during the past four years.
It is unlikely that any one political party will come back with a great political majority, and consequently we should have a Prime Minister going to the peace conference without his being the leader of a party which had a large majority in this House. My right hon. Friend in one of his speeches, said that Conservative, Liberal and Labour men were dying together on the battlefield, and were appealing to us for unity. I agree. But I have a right to remind him that, although there are very few Independent Members in this House, there are many non-party people in the country at the present time. Of course I am not against the principle of party but against the present set-up of parties.
If you took 100 men in the Army and asked those to step forward who were closely attached to one of the existing parties, I question if 50 men would step to the front. The other 50 are waiting to see where they are to go in the political world, and I think they want to follow the Prime Minister, if they are allowed to do so, in some form of national unity in the next three or four years.
I entirely agree that we must have an election, and that is the dilemma. How are we to have an election, if we are not to do it in the old style of the parties setting about each other in a lusty manner? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield did not like the four years plan broadcast by the Prime Minister. I liked it very well, and so did very many people in this country. My suggestion is this, although I think there is no hope of its being adopted. The leaders at present in the War Cabinet should set up a broad programme of ten points, approximately on the lines of the Prime Minister's plan, so that they can invite the country to return Members—no coupons about it—who would, broadly speaking, support that programme. I foresee possibly three candidates in a constituency, and the possibility of people, while agreeing in a general way, disagreeing in particular matters, some thinking that it did not go far enough and others that it went too far. When the new House of Commons comes back, if, as I believe, there will be a considerable increase in the numbers of hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches, the

War Cabinet could be re-formed, to reflect the changed composition of the House, and we could start again with a new National Government. I forecast that, as I believe, if we have a phoney party election, within a week the situation will be such that a new Coalition or National Government will have to be formed.

1.17 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I am sure the whole House, while welcoming the good-humoured way in which the Prime Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, will deplore the necessity for the Bill itself. Many hoped that the war with Germany would have been concluded by now, and many people were justified in that hope by what they knew of the situation on the Continent of Europe, and by statements made by people entitled to make them. But the Nazi resistance has proved to be much greater internally than many expected it would be. I would not like to say anything about the reasons for that, although I think I would be entitled to point out, that the psychological leadership of the Allied war effort at the present time has contributed materially to the stiffening of the German resistance. Had we been conducting the war at the moment with as much skill, mentally and spiritually, as militarily, the war might have been over long ago.
Therefore, I do not subscribe to those sentences of the Prime Minister in which he was so wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the Government of which he is the head. We can understand his enthusiasm, although many of us do not share it. As I ventured to point out to the House some weeks ago, when speaking of the war situation, the extraordinary fact to-day is not the concentration of military power that the Allies are bringing to bear upon the German people, but the extraordinary resistance which the German people are able to maintain at the present time. That resistance is formidable, unexpected—because the progress of our troops since "D" Day has been as great and swift, militarily, as we expected it to be—

The Prime Minister: It is much more than I expected it to be.

Mr. Bevan: I dare say, but I have not armed myself with the appropriate quotations.

The Prime Minister: I certainly did not form such high expectations as those which have been realised in the campaign in France.

Mr. Bevan: The Prime Minister formed a cautious estimate of our possibilities, but, nevertheless, there were persons in very high positions who expressed themselves as delighted with the progress made, as leading to the reasonable hope that the German resistance would have broken before now, and it is no use their telling us that we are being held because of the weather. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has not said so, and I am not accusing him of doing so. Therefore, if we anticipated the collapse of Germany, it is because we thought that the German internal situation would have resulted in the collapse of the German military front. These were, indeed, reasonable grounds for hoping that the war would have been over by now and one would have thought that the policy of the Government would have been directed to influencing that internal situation.
Instead of that, so far the policy of the Government has reinforced the Nazi resistance against the Allied armies, and has resulted in the death of many British and American soldiers who would now be alive if the Government's policy had been more intelligently conducted. I am not going to subscribe to this rubbish that the policy of the Government deserves the full support of the House of Commons. On the contrary, I take the view that the Government have made fundamental errors, which have resulted in our having to face a sixth winter of war. I believe that when the war is over, and all the facts can be examined, it will be shown that the Government's use of our material and moral resources has been far less than it should have been and has resulted in the prolongation of the war. I do not, however, want to speak about the war, although I am quite sure I am entitled to do so, having regard to the expansive manner in which the Prime Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
I would like to say a word or two about the Coalition Government. I never believed that a Coalition Government was necessary in order to unite the nation against Germany. I never thought that was the reason for it at all. It is true that we joined the Coalition Government in 1940, in order to bring the spiritual

resources of the Labour movement into unity with those of the Conservative Party. At that time, the Government needed a great deal of refreshment, and the Labour Party joined the Government in order to give it, but the reason why the political truce has continued so far, is because of the physical difficulties of holding a General Election in Great Britain during the blitz, and also as a consequence of the disturbance of the civil population. To say that the Coalition Government was necessary in this country in order to unite Great Britain against Germany, is to disregard the example of the Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have all had elections during the war and their military effort has been comparable with ours. They have been able to engage in party differences and to hold elections and, at the same time, to concentrate their military strength behind the war.
It is, therefore, no answer to say that the Coalition Government has been an essential instrument of British national unity against Germany. Nor do I suppose that the presence of Ministers of this party in the Government has been indispensable to the better conduct of the war. I have held the view, and I hold it even more strongly now than previously, that, on very many occasions, the war effort of this nation could have been much more efficient and effective if the Opposition in this House had been stronger. If I am challenged on that matter, I can give many instances, from the factories, from the provision of weapons, from the formation of strategy and from a hundred points of view, to show that the ineffectiveness of the Opposition in the House has contributed materially to the inefficiency of the Government. Therefore, I do not subscribe to that view either.
But, having joined the Government, having gone so far, I think it would be foolish to break up the National Government now before Germany is beaten. I think our representatives are entitled to say that, having gone so far, they must complete the journey and remain in the Government until Germany is defeated. What causes us anxiety, on this side of the House, is the period between now and the break-up of the Government, that is, the period between now and the defeat of Germany. What is going to happen? The chairman of the 1922 Committee let


drop some ominous suggestions. What did he suggest? My hon. and learned Friend suggested that the Prime Minister should submit himself more readily to the majority vote in Committee on important Bills. That is to say, the leader of the back bench Tories, following, of course, the vote we had last week, is now suggesting that we, on this side of the House, should submit ourselves to be voted down by the Conservative majority in the House of Commons, while remaining loyal to the National Government. That is the suggestion.
I have held the view on several occasions in the House that it would be far better if the Government were more disposed to accept the judgment of the House, and I have held that view ever since 1940—since we joined the National Government. It always seemed to me that, there being no chance of an appeal to the electorate during the war, in these circumstances, the House of Commons itself should become the microcosm of the electorate, and therefore, divisions in the House of Commons about policy ought to be accepted by the Government, not so much as a threat to the Government, but as an expression of opinion about their policy, and that they ought, on many occasions, to have taken our view of their behaviour without always suggesting that, when we disagreed, it was necessary to dissolve the whole Coalition.
I believe that, by insisting on rigid party discipline since 1940, the Government have often deprived themselves of effective counsel by the House itself. They have cut themselves off, on many occasions, from the public opinion of the House of Commons. It would have been far better for us if we could have expressed our point of view more freely in the Division Lobby without being exposed to this business of party discipline, from which I have, on several occasions, suffered some personal embarrassment.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The hon. Member is not the only one.

Mr. Bevan: No. I know the schoolmaster is hurt as much by the cane as the pupil. We know about that. This counsel of mine having been rejected, it does seem rather hard that we should have

to listen to it at the tail-end of this Parliament. Now we are having it from the leader of the back bench Tories. Now that we are going to face, it may be, important social legislation, he wants the Whips to be taken off the Tory majority. That is the idea. When, during the war, we have been trying on several occasions to focus the progressive opinion in the country on the policies of the Government, and to obtain some advance in our social policies, the Tory Whips have been put on in order to keep us in order.

Mr. Kirkwood: Sometimes very effectively.

Mr. Bevan: Now that Parliament is coming to its end, and is facing important policies, the Tories want the relaxation of Tory discipline in order to use the Tory majority to vote down the things with which they disagree. That is what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the 1922 Club has suggested.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is the hon. Member aware that the Conservative and Unionist Members of that Committee have no leader in that sense at all, and that whatever an hon. Gentleman may say who happens to occupy an official position there, it does not bind anybody else who happens to belong to the Parliamentary party?

Mr. Bevan: I did not say for a moment that the hon. Member was expressing the views of all Conservative Members, but we know from events of last week that Members of the Conservative Party who voted with us in the Lobby, did so with very great reluctance and that they would have infinitely preferred the other Lobby. One of the important spokesmen of the Conservative Party now suggests that that system should not be continued. In Committee on the Education Bill we carried an Amendment on equal pay for men and women teachers. We, on this side, although small in numbers, succeeded in getting enough Conservative Members to go into the Lobby to vote for equal pay.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): It was a Conservative Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: It was a Conservative Amendment because the only chance of getting an agreed principle at all was to divide the Conservative Party. But the majority in the Division Lobby came


from these benches and were led into the Lobby by the spokesmen of the Labour Party. We succeeded in obtaining a majority of one. What happened? The Prime Minister came down to the House of Commons and suggested that the unity of the Government was imperilled and he would only remain Prime Minister if the Amendment were withdrawn. The Prime Minister threw in his own personal prestige and his authority as Leader of the Conservative Party to obtain the withdrawal of a principle which was agreeable to progressive opinion If that be the case, we are not going to stand down quietly and accept the situation. If the Tories use their power to vote us down, do they still imagine that the unity of a National Government can be preserved? It is as much an obligation on the benches opposite in these circumstances to preserve unity, as it is for us on these benches, and more so. I want to say at once that, as we enter the lists in the next few months, we shall watch the Prime Minister very carefully and not accept the doctrine that we are to be voted down in the Division Lobbies by Conservatives exercising their Conservative majority in the House of Commons.
I do not know what we are going to do when this Bill is considered in Committee, but I would like to reinforce one thing which was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I also am disturbed about the interregnum between the dissolution and the election. What sort of Government will be in existence at that time? Will it be a Coalition Government? It was not made clear, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will make clear what is to happen.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am not going to form it myself, as far as I know.

Mr. Bevan: Those of us on this side of the House want to know what the Prime Minister will do in the interregnum. His Majesty's Government will still be in being although the House of Commons will be dissolved. What Government will be in being? Will it be a reconstituted Conservative Government upon which the Prime Minister will be appealing to the country, or a continuation of the Coalition Government? [An HON. MEMBER:

"It will depend on the Labour Party."] Oh, no, it will not. If we remain in the Government at that time, that will not be the Government that will appeal to the country. The Government that will appeal to the country at that time will be a Conservative Government. If the parties have decided to go their separate ways, there will be a Government appealing to the country, and that will be a Conservative Government. Who, at that time, will be in charge of the nation's affairs for two months or more?

Mr. H. Morrison: I will tell my hon. Friend about that.

Mr. Bevan: We do not like the Prime Minister to be in undisputed charge of foreign affairs, in view of the great sympathy he is known to have With reactionary influences all over Europe.

Commander King-Hall: Stay in and watch him.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member must not put those things as alternatives to us. You must not expect us to keep in prison permanently, in order to be free for a few days. We all know my hon. and gallant Friend's difficulties in the matter. He is in great trouble about political auspices. He must not make his difficulties general difficulties; they are his own difficulties.

Commander King-Hall: They are credentials.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. and gallant Friend said he would like a National Government led by the Prime Minister. He is not going to have it. I can understand his difficulties in that respect but we do not share them. What we desire to secure is that, in that constitutional hiatus between the dissolution and the re-assembly of a new Parliament, some constitutional device may be formed for the purpose of keeping the Prime Minister in effective control. I do not propose to oppose the Bill and I would only point out that the need to prolong Parliament for another year at this time is a poor epitaph on the manner in which the Government are conducting the affairs of the nation.

1.39 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in what he said in the earlier part of his


speech on the might-have-beens of recent history. We all may have different views about that, and, if I followed him, it would probably open a very wide field of disagreement which does not seem to be relevant to the purpose of this Bill. In this Bill we are dealing with facts as they are to-day, and the facts being what they are to-day, I would like to say that I congratulate the Prime Minister on the statement he has made to the House. I believe that it will not only be satisfactory to the House but to the whole country. At any rate, I feel personally completely satisfied with it. I do not agree with the hon. Member that the political unity which has been shown in this war up to the present time and which, I hope, will be shown up to the end of the war with Germany has been unnecessary.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say that. I must not he misinterpreted. I said that the participation of this party in the Coalition Government was not necessarily an instrument of national unity. There was unity behind the war but not necessarily behind the Government.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not think that we disagree. The hon. Member said that elections had been held in all Dominions and several other countries, and that, therefore, there was no reason, except technical and mechanical difficulties, for an election not being held here. I am very glad, for my part, that an election has not been held here. I am sure the political unity of this country, despite the fact that there has been political division in other territories closely connected with us in this war, has had a great effect upon the world in general and, certainly, it has been deeply appreciated in the Fighting Services. The Fighting Services are not interested in party politics, and the fact that they have been set aside for a period has undoubtedly tended to raise the morale of our fighting men and their confidence in the Government conducting military operations. I hope, therefore, that that unity will not seriously be impaired until the war with Germany is over.
I also fully agree with the Prime Minister that it would not be possible, things being what they are, to expect that unity to continue after the war with Germany is over until the end of the war with Japan, which may

be at a much more distant date. Before the war with Germany is over, and still more after the war with Germany is over, we shall be dealing with the immediate future of this country—with its political, economic and social structure and the main principles which that structure should reflect. We shall approach these issues from different standpoints and with divergent principles so far as the two main parties are concerned. We should therefore return to our normal constitutional and Parliamentary practice, as soon as the emergency which created the present Coalition is past. Because this seems to me right and inevitable, I particularly welcome the statement which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) when he said that, whatever the result of the General Election which will be held, there can be no question of this war not being one war, and that we shall still be at one in carrying on until the complete and final defeat of the Japanese Empire. That statement will be warmly endorsed on this side of the House and it ought to go out to the whole world as showing our determination to carry on the war as a whole whatever political divisions there may be in this country when the Coalition ends.
As to what happens while the Coalition still endures, I am bound to say that I am in some agreement with what fell from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. It is undoubtedly desirable that the problems of the future should be dealt with by a Government with a fresh mandate from the country, whatever the character of that Government may be. It is equally desirable that criticism of that Government in our proper constitutional form should be carried on in this House from the benches opposite, whoever may occupy then, by Members of this House who have upon them the responsibility of forming the alternative Government, if their criticism prevails. That is the basis of our constitutional and Parliamentary system, and I think it desirable that it should be resumed at the earliest possible moment. In the meantime, however, I agree with him as to the undesirability of pressing party points of view or party divisions too far, and I hope he will himself conform to his own argument. I myself would feel that it would be an improper use of the majority which the Conservative Party still possess in this House to use it, even at the Committee stage, to press purely


Conservative points of view. That is why, although I profoundly disagreed with the new Clauses produced last week to the Town and Country Planning Bill, I voted for the Government.
I hope, therefore, that in the period which must still lapse before National Government comes to an end, moderation and consideration will be shown to each other by both sides, and that if Conservatives, as I think they will, do not attempt even at the Committee stage to use the strength which they possess in this House, the same consideration will be shown for them from the other side. Clearly this consideration must be mutual if it is to be effective, and it has not been mutual at all times. With those few remarks, I would repeat that I welcome very warmly the statement from the Prime Minister this afternoon, and the corollary which was added to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield.

1.46 p.m.

Major Markham: Listening to this Debate to-day one could not but be impressed by the universal agreement with the Prime Minister's determination that there should not be a General Election until the end of the war with Germany was in sight or achieved. I myself agree reluctantly with the Prime Minister. For nine years I have been the Member for South Nottingham, and for five years of that nine I have had very little chance of refreshing myself with local opinion. That is because I, in conjunction with many other hon. Members, have turned from party politics to the achievement of the finish of the war as the first aim in life. I have naturally sacrificed many advantages but I may say that as far as my political opponents are concerned, I have no complaint of their behaviour during the period. As one of those who have put the conclusion of the war first, I think the Prime Minister's speech this morning will help many of us to continue in that vein instead of returning to what may be very wasteful and tiresome faction. I should very much regret to see energy and time wasted in the pursuit of party politics until we are much nearer the end of these troubles that beset the world.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) pointed out that there were in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, Governments which still indulge in party

politics. He might have also have used the illustration of the United States of America. It has been my fortune during this war to see service in each one of those four great countries, and I think I can say without any hesitation that leading statesmen of those countries would agree that their war effort has been sadly hurt and crippled in many ways through unrestrained party politics in those four great countries. I remember a conversation with the Prime Minister of one of our great Dominions only a few months ago, in which he complained most bitterly about the factious opposition which was coming from another political party—

Mr. A. Bevan: Every Government does.

Major Markham: This complaint was not that he was opposed, it was that it was taking so many men's time and energy away from the prosecution of the war. I do not think there can be any quibble about that; you cannot indulge in party politics without spending time and energy, and, at the moment, we cannot afford that luxury.

Mr. Bevan: We have had these admonitions so often. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman seriously suggest that the war effort of this country would have been advantaged if all of us had accepted commissions in His Majesty's Forces for the last five years, and closed up the House of Commons?

Major Markham: From each according to his ability, from each according to his merits, and from each according to the opportunity he has to serve.

Mr. Bevan: That is not the point.

Major Markham: A good many hon. Members of this House are too old to render active military service and, in their wisdom, they render much greater service here. We in this country were so near the battle front—indeed, we were the battle front—that we could not indulge in the luxury in which other countries have indulged from the comparative safety of distance from the actual war. Anyone who has just come back from the United States would be astonished at the amount of space taken up in the Press, the amount of time taken up publicly, and the amount of money and war materials that are being used in the Presi-


dential Election. The same has been true of the Dominions as regards General Elections. I myself hope that this country will keep a national spirit until the war and foreign affairs have been determined in a satisfactory manner.
It has been said that coalitions in this country are not popular. There is certainly an air of truth about that, but I think it would be truer to say that it is coupon elections which are really unpopular. I do not think anyone would charge this Government with being unpopular with the country in the way it has handled the war. If this Government went to the country on that issue to-day, I think it would come back with overwhelming support. However, what is undoubtedly unpopular is a coupon election where the elector has not the right or opportunity to choose for himself a man who will represent him during the course of the next three or five years.
I would go a little further than most in urging national Government on this ground. I, for one, have always taken the view that when this country is dealing with other countries, when indeed the whole subject of foreign affairs comes up, we cannot afford to show a disunited front abroad. If we have differences of opinion, those differences should be settled or compromised in this country, and abroad we should speak with a single mind and a single voice. Any other method of dealing with foreign countries leads to weakness abroad, and the inevitable result is chaos and a lessening of the prestige which Britain enjoys. I am very proud of the prestige which Britain enjoys abroad. I am not one of those who believe that this country's influence abroad has been consistently bad or immoral. I have seen something of this magnificent Empire we have built, and I am very proud of it, and I believe and maintain that the only chance we have of getting the world to greater sanity, and indeed, to greater purity of purpose, is by ourselves remaining united so long as foreign affairs are the dominant problem with which this Parliament and this country have to deal.

1.54 p.m.

Professor Savory: We have heard this afternoon representatives of all parties, representatives of the Government, the Conservative

Party, the National Liberal Party, the Liberal Party, the Labour Party, the Left Wing of the Labour Party, and the Independents. Is it not fitting, therefore, that now the House should give its kindly attention to a representative from Ulster? The Ulster Members in this House constitute an independent party. They have their own constitution, their chairman and their secretary. They meet regularly, and they consider all the affairs of the nation, especially those which concern Ulster. Very well then, this party, being absolutely independent, and looking at things from its own point of view, is entitled, I think, to have its voice heard. Whenever it can conscientiously, it votes for the Government that is when the Government are right, but should it be a question, for instance, of gambling away once more our Irish ports, you would soon see where Ulster stands, even when you allege the pretext of conciliation.
I shall not attempt to follow the speeches of the hon. Members who have preceded me. I entirely agree with what the Prime Minister has said, and, to a very large extent, with what the Leader of the Opposition has added. However, a good many of the considerations that have been brought forward seem to me to have very little to do with the Bill before the House. I would ask the House therefore to turn to this Bill, which they will see consists of two Clauses and of these two Clauses, the lengthier—I will not say the more important but the equally important—second Clause refers to Ulster, to the prolongation of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Now it would perhaps not be superfluous if I were to say a word as to the necessity of our coming to the Imperial Parliament and asking it to empower us to prolong our Parliament once more.
The Act of 1920 which set up the Ulster Constitution is a Measure of devolution, and lays down very clearly in Section 14 that there must be a general election every five years. Therefore it is not within our power to lengthen our Parliament; that would be immediately ruled out as being ultra vires. So we come here and ask you to do for us what you are doing for yourselves, and for the very same reasons, to prolong the life of our Parliament. What the Prime Minister said applies equally to Ulster. A very large number of Ulster men have joined voluntarily,


without any compulsion whatsoever, His Majesty's Forces. If an election were to take place, as it would have to take place in February next year so far as Ulster is concerned, it would be impossible to get these men on to the register to enable them to vote. Here, in this Parliament of the United Kingdom, you are asking for a prolongation to carry you into a tenth year. The Ulster Parliament was re-elected in February, 1938, and all that we are asking you to do, if you pass the second Clause of this Bill, is to prolong our Parliament for an eighth year. The reasons for that prolongation are of supreme importance, and I should like to allude to what this Parliament has done to show that it deserves to have its tenure of office prolonged.
Two years ago, and last year, great latitude was given to various speakers when they were addressing the House on the Second Reading of the corresponding Bill, because they insisted that the Ulster Parliament should not be prolonged as it was not a Coalition—it was only a one-party Government. Well now, that reason no longer has any validity because the Government have taken into the Cabinet a very distinguished representative of the Labour Party, the right hon. Harry Midgley, formerly leader of the Labour Party in the Ulster House of Commons. He has joined that Coalition without sacrificing any of his principles, is just as much a Socialist as he was before, holds very similar views to our Home Secretary and to other Labour Members of the British Government and, if he has joined the Ulster Government, it is only on patriotic grounds. It is, above all, for the reason that he believes so far as the labouring classes are concerned—and he represents the labour classes as he rightly claims—their interests are bound up with the interests of the United Kingdom, and that it is only by Ulster remaining a part of the United Kingdom that all those great social advantages and all this very beneficent legislation which you are carrying through in this Parliament—it is only by closely associating ourselves with the Imperial Parliament—that we can apply that legislation to Ulster. This consideration of a Coalition has, I think, been fully met.
People have said, "Cannot you carry that principle a little further?" Well, in order to reply to this argument, I would

like to call attention to the constitution of the Ulster Parliament at the present moment. It consists of 52 Members. There is one vacancy, and there are 38 Unionists, six Nationalists, three Independent Unionists, two Labour members and one Republican, who has not taken the oath. Of the six Nationalists, only two ever attend the House and, as I have said, the Republican has not taken the oath. There are only two members of the Labour Party left, so I think it will be agreed that the prospects of further Coalition are not too promising. If you want a Coalition, you have to coalesce with somebody and it is difficult, out of these heterogeneous parties, to find somebody with whom to coalesce. I maintain that we have formed a truly National Government which is out and out for the war effort. Last year, great latitude was given to a speaker in this House for attacking the Ulster Parliament, and opposing its prolongation on the ground that it had not successfully dealt with the question of unemployment. Well, just before the war broke out, on 14th August, 1939, there were, in the whole of Ulster, 63,113 unemployed. That number was reduced, by 17th July of this year, to 14,687. The up-to-date figures are—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I gather that a certain amount of latitude was allowed last year, but I do not think it would be in Order to reply to what was said then by now going into the unemployment figures for Ulster.

Professor Savory: May I give the up to-date figures?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman must stop there.

Professor Savory: Very well. I would now like to deal with the question of education, which has occupied so very much of the time of this House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands me. This is not an occasion for discussing the local matters of the Northern Ireland Administration as regards employment or education. This Debate is for the larger and wider issue of whether it is of general political interest to extend the Northern Ireland Parliament, or this Parliament.

Professor Savory: So far as the war effort is concerned Ulster is doing all she


possibly can. We had an interesting visit from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture recently and he pointed out that we had increased our tillage acreage by 80 per cent., whereas here, in Great Britain, the increase had been only some 70 per cent. It is also of great importance for the war effort that we should increase our production of flax which, from 73,000 acres in 1942, has been increased to 93,000 in 1943. Those who honoured us by seeing the film dealing with Ulster, which was shown in the House the other day, saw what we have tried to do to help forward the war effort, which is just as much the concern of Ulster as of any other part of the United Kingdom. In 1943 we sent you over £2,376,000 worth of fat stock, and we are sending, at the present moment, three-quarters of our egg production to enable you to carry on the war effort—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very sorry to interrupt, but this seems to be a long way from a reason why the Northern Ireland Parliament should be prolonged. If the hon. Gentleman could connect it in some way with such a reason he would be in Order.

Professor Savory: It is essential for the common war effort that Britain should have certain textiles, and our Parliament has done everything it possibly can to help in that way. We have supplied 164,000,000 yards of material for the Ministry of Supply, 65,000,000 yards for the Ministry of Aircraft Production and a further 65,000,000 yards for the Board of Trade. Practically the whole of the linen which is used at the present time in connection with aeroplanes, for harness and webbing for parachutes, is being provided by Ulster.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would ask the hon. Gentleman, quite seriously, to relate this to a sound reason why the Northern Ireland Parliament, or this Parliament, should be prolonged or not.

Professor Savory: I am afraid that if the Northern Ireland Parliament were not prolonged, the interruption which would be caused by a General Election would interfere with the war effort. We are doing everything we possibly can on behalf of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. For instance, our sales of milk have in-

creased from 45,000,000 gallons in 1941 to 54,750,000 gallons in 1944. We are sending daily, to Scotland, no less than 23,000 gallons of liquid milk to help relieve the great shortage.
It has often been brought forward against our Ulster Parliament that it is dependent on Great Britain, that it lives by subsidies from Great Britain, that it does not pay its own way—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can use this occasion to go into subsidies for the Irish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman must keep that for a later date.

Professor Savory: The Parliament for which I am asking for prolongation has contributed the net sum of over £157,000,000 since it was set up in 1922. Therefore, it is not, as it is sometimes thought to be, a poor relation. It is a partner in the carrying on of the great work of Empire. It has shared with the rest of the United Kingdom in its liabilities and responsibilities, and on these grounds it deserves to be prolonged. If a General Election were to take place all the great advantages which are forthcoming from the Northern Ireland Parliament might be very seriously imperilled. In conclusion—and I think this is strictly relevant—I want to quote some great words of the Prime Minister, whom Homer would have called .
In a letter he wrote to Ulster's ex Prime Minister, the right hon. J. M. Andrews, on his retirement, he laid stress on what the Ulster Parliament had been doing, after the disasters which had taken place in 1940, when Britain was refused the use of the Southern ports, and went on:
Only one great channel of entry remained open because loyal Ulster gave us the full use of the Northern Ireland ports and waters and thus ensured the free working of the Clyde and the Mersey. But for the loyalty of Northern Ireland, and its devotion to what has now become the cause of 30 Governments or nations, we should have been confronted with slavery and death, and the light which now shines so strongly throughout the world would have been quenched.

2.13 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) in his glorification of Ulster. We all know its patriotism and the work it has done.


agree with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in suggesting that many parts of that speech were out of Order, but if I may be allowed to say so with respect, it was a little unfortunate that my hon. Friend should have been stopped just when he was speaking about eggs, because surely eggs are good Parliamentary missiles. I rise to-day to put only three points. First of all, I am no lover of a Coalition normally, but I do not disagree with the Prime Minister in his suggestion to-day that this Parliament should be prolonged, and that the Government should continue until the end of the war with Germany on a coalition basis. There are two small points arising out of my right hon. Friend's speech, in which he went into some detail as to the mechanics of the future. One is the question of agents. The Prime Minister said that a General Election could not be held within seven to nine months from to-day. I understand that there are many agents—it does not affect me personally—who are serving in the Forces, and who have no priority for release. If it is a fact that there cannot be an election within seven to nine months, although there might be, it is obviously necessary for the parties to appoint their agents in the constituencies at a fairly early date, so that they will be able to take charge of registration and prepare for the election. I should be grateful if the Minister who is to reply would give us an assurance that some arrangements will be made in good time for the priority release of people who are agents, or who are required as agents, and who are now in the Forces.
The next point is the question of dissolution. I was interested to hear the hon. Member of Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on this point. As I understand it, there might be an interregnum of three months between dissolution and the setting up of another Parliament. That seems to me a very long time. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said he was doubtful about the form of Government which would rule the country in the interregnum. I, too, am doubtful. I should have thought that on dissolution Parliament would be dissolved but that the Government in office at the time of the dissolution would continue. If, however, Labour Ministers take the view that at the time of the dissolution the "dog-fight" should start, they will then walk out, and it will be left to

the remaining parties on the majority side of the House to form a Government.
Let us take that a little further. The Financial Secretary to the War Office is a Labour Member. Supposing he goes out at the dissolution and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) comes in as Financial Secretary to the War Office. He has views on the length of overseas service. Is it not going to be extremely difficult for the interregnum Government to carry on the continuous policy of the previous Coalition Government? I think we ought to get as clear a statement as we can, because it seems to me imperative that during the interregnum there should be a continuity of the Coalition until we can make a fresh start with the new Parliament, and it would not be fair to new Ministers coming in from the majority party to take over the mistakes of Ministers who have walked out.
Lastly, there is the question of controversy. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) when he talks about encouraging controversy now. We all agree that in 1940 it was impossible. It would have been taken in the world to mean that the country was not united in the prosecution of the war. I believe that there should be controversy now, and I believe that inevitably there will be, but I suggest that it should not be in connection with the prosecution of the war. Most recent legislation has had, and prospective legislation will have, nothing to do with the war. It will have to do with the peace, and that inevitably will lead to controversy. Either the Government has to refuse to introduce further controversial legislation or it will introduce it. If it does—and I do not see how it can avoid it—it must be prepared to accept controversy and to accept arguments from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) said he would deprecate controversy on political occasions. The Government must realise that both sides have principles, and it is very hard for us who dearly hold our principles, as was shown last week, to set them aside in the interests of the continuity of the Coalition Government, which has been allowed for so long. Therefore, if on occasions there is controversy, the Government must realise that it is only due to their introduction of controversial


subjects and they must accept that, and, if they are to deal with controversy, they must accept the effects of the controversy in the Division Lobby if the occasion arises. That being so, I hope the Bill will be passed and that the Government will avoid controversy as much as they can, but will understand, if there is controversy, the reason for it—that both sides hold principles which they must hold and find it extremely hard to ignore them in the interests of a united front on the front bench.

2.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): There is, I think, general agreement in all parts of the House with the Prime Minister's speech and, though some points have been noticed and observations have been made upon it here and there, broadly speaking I think the House accepts the state of mind and the general arguments with which the Prime Minister moved the Second Reading. I think I shall carry the House with me if I say we all agree that it was a fair speech, that it was broadminded, that it sought to get a good public spirit into the consideration of a matter which could so easily degenerate into a mere series of sectional wrangles. These are bad enough, though perhaps inevitable, when elections take place, but certainly would be harmful if they were to take place during the conduct of the European War. I should like to be able to say, with the agreement of the House, that the House very much appreciated and respected, and even admired, the broad public-spirited manner in which the Prime Minister approached the wide issues which he raised. This has been the most unusual Debate on a Prolongation Bill that I have witnessed, and naturally so, because we all feel that this will almost certainly be the last Bill for the prolongation of this Parliament, and it is inevitable that Members should be beginning to think more concretely about the electoral situation and the possibilities of the future of the Government than on previous occasions. If I do not cover everything that everyone has said, it only because I cannot profess to be expert about everything that everyone has said, for the Debate has gone very wide and has touched on a number of interesting topics and, either through ignorance or because it would not be appropriate

for me to do so, I shall not deal with everything that has been said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) gave general support to the views that the Prime Minister expressed. The one thing about which he was not inclined to be in full agreement was the possible period of time between the dissolution of this Parliament and the election and meeting of the new one. That question has been raised in a number of other quarters. I think I shall be able to satisfy the House thoroughly that there is no need for undue apprehension on this point. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said there would have to be time to form a new Government between the break up of this one and the election of the new Parliament. That point has been raised by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who was greatly intrigued as to what sort of Government that would be and was very anxious to have full particulars about it. I am not sure that I am the right person to answer his questions, and I cannot answer them in detail, but broadly speaking this seems to be inevitable. The Labour Party has made a declaration of its intentions, and the Liberal organisation outside—I do not know how far it speaks for the Liberal Parliamentary party—has also made a declaration. All sorts of people have been writing and talking about the interesting events that may happen some day.
If the election does not take place until the conclusion of the European War and the Labour Party, and possibly the Liberal Party, are going to fight the election independently, it follows that there will be a dissolution of the Government between the conclusion of the European War and the actual electoral contest. That seems to be inevitable in the political layout at the moment in so far as we know the parties' intentions. If that happens, a new Government will have to be formed, and the appropriate person to form it would be the leader of the majority party unless there are particular reasons to the contrary. One must assume, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be faced with the responsibility of forming another Government out of the present Parliament, which will presumably be very much more exclusively Conservative than this Government. It seems obvious that some


such development will take place, subject to all sorts of possibilities we do not know now, which might change the situation.

Mr. Woodburn: It seemed to me that the point raised was a slightly different one. The time between the finish of the war and the election is hypothetical. It may be three, six or nine months. I gathered from the spirit of the Prime Minister's speech that the Government were going to be dissolved on the eve of the election, in order that there might not be the kind of acrimony that he does not want to have develop in the intervening period. He rather gave the idea that the Government will dissolve immediately after the war, and therefore the time will be indeterminate as to when the election will take place.

Mr. Morrison: I did not give that idea at all. I said some time between the end of European hostilities and the election. I do not complain of my hon. Friend putting the point, but I think a complaint might reasonably lie against me if I answered it with the precision that he wishes. These are matters for the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day when the time comes.

Earl Winterton: Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Stirling, Eastern (Mr. Woodburn) used the word "dissolve." A Government does not dissolve. It hands its resignation to the Crown, and it is for the Crown to send for the most appropriate person who must form a new Government. It is not a question of dissolution but of resignation.

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree. One is perhaps a little clumsy about one's phrases. "Dissolution of the Government" is a wrong term, and the Noble Lord is quite right to pull me up. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield gives general support to the attitude of the Prime Minister, and I speak for the latter when I say that he much appreciates the very good spirit with which my right hon. Friend responded to his speech. Indeed, the whole Debate has been conducted with that good public spirit which is so helpful in these matters. After all, there is nothing wrong in being reasonable with

each other while there is yet time. The day will come when it will not be so easy. The Prime Minister has asked me to say that he is not the sort of man who would wish to hold on needlessly and with a lack of decency to things as they are, or keep Parliament in being longer than Parliament ought decently to be kept in being. On the other hand it was clear that he does not want to be indecent in the opposite direction, by having a snap election or playing similar tricks, at the time when the nation has to make a great and responsible decision at the end of a war, in which all the established parties have played their full part and co-operated in the Government.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) said, quite rightly, that we are now entering upon the transition from war to peace and that, whereas in the earlier years of the war the Debates and discussions, and even the legislation in this House, were almost entirely directed to the prosecution of the war, we are now getting into a phase when legislation and discussions arise on the matters which will face the country after the war and we are beginning to look ahead to post-war problems. He said that it might not be as easy to be non-controversial then as it has been in the past. I quite agree. The Government will have to feel their way. First, they will have to agree about these things themselves, and they will then have to concentrate on how far they can get agreement in the House of Commons and how far it will be possible to come to decisions in the House without disturbing the co-operative basis of the administration. But it is inevitable that the House will not only have to concern itself with matters arising out of the war, but possibly to an increasing extent prepare for problems which will arise after the war. If we approach them with the object of doing the best we can for the nation in the solution of the grave questions that will face it then, we shall have done all we can. If, in the outcome, we are unable to agree, we shall have to get are unable to agree, we shall have to get out of that difficulty as best we can. I do not think that in itself the possibility of differences is a reason why the problems should not be faced; we shall have to discuss them and consider them in accordance with what is on the agenda at the time.
My hon. and learned Friend said that there were a number of Members of the House who were almost co-opted, that is to say, in whose cases the appropriate party organisation nominated the successor to a former Member and the return was unopposed. Co-option is not far from the mark as a description of what has happened in a number of cases. This has happened as a result of the electoral truce, which, I think, has had great advantages, although I know there are many people who think that it has not. Indeed, some Members have entered the House as the result of setting aside the electoral true and achieving victory over the candidate who had the support of the Government. That is a reason why this Parliament should not last too long, and it is a legitimate argument to advance. My hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Sir L. Jones), speaking from the Liberal-National Bench, gave general support to the Bill, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), whose tribute to the Prime Minister for his honesty and forthcomingness in opening the Debate I very much appreciate on behalf of my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) said that he thought it would be a mistake if the Conservative Party were to use its majority in the House for partisan purposes, even in the Committee stage of a Bill. I am sure that that kindly and tolerant gesture of my hon. Friend will be listened to in the right quarter, for which I am not in a position to speak with any authority.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham) deprecated the return to party politics. He had seen party politics operating in the Dominions and thought the result was not good. I will say nothing about the Dominions. As to the return to politics, it is no good grumbling about it; it is inevitable. It is the shape of things to come, both because some of the political parties have so decided, and because I myself believe John Bull will not be sorry at the right time to have a little more of the sporting element in electoral contests and a little more freedom of choice between the candidates. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory), whose speech I am sorry to have missed because

I always enjoy listening to him, made, I understand, quite an election address on behalf of Northern Ireland and its virtues. As the Minister whose business it is to defend Northern Ireland whenever he conscientiously can—which is quite often—and whose relations with Northern Ireland are very good, I can only say I am sorry I was not here, and that I hope with some confidence that I would have agreed with the general argument that my hon. Friend advanced, in so far as it was in praise of that part of His Majesty's Dominions for which I have some responsibility as liaison officer between the Government of Northern Ireland and this Government and Parliament.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) said that there was a problem in connection with the release of political agents from the Forces so that they might resume their work and get on with their quiet and efficient preparations for the battle to come. I am sorry that I cannot deal with that matter, which is one for the Minister of Labour. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Minister of Labour has had representations about it and that I believe it is under consideration by him. If there are questions about it they should be raised with my right hon. Friend who, I am sure, will be prepared to consider representations. I can give no decisive answer either about individual cases or general policy.
That leaves me with the point about procedure which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, by hon. Members on this side, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. That is the point about the length of time which the Prime Minister indicated might elapse between the dissolution of Parliament and the polling day. The House has forgotten—and I do not blame it at all—that I dealt with this matter in the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943. The Prime Minister said that it might be two or three months between the initial decision to start the process of dissolution and its positively being known that this move was being made, and the polling day. I hope that it would be nearer two months than three, but my right hon. Friend wanted to be cautious and allow a little margin in case he cannot live up to that. The official time for completing the processes to be gone through in the running of the official


side of the electoral organisation, is about seven-and-a-half weeks, so that two months may be near enough. That begins from the effective date of the Parliamentary dissolution. The trouble lies in the mechanical difficulties. With things as they are the register will not exist at the start. It will have to be made afterwards and it is doubtful whether it will be printed. It may have to be multigraphed. That is the biggest difficulty from the point of view of timing, but it is inevitable as things are. If circumstances change, if later legislation should alter the situation and we find it possible to speed up the official machine, I shall of course be very happy to do whatever is practicable in this direction. On that I cannot give any assurance because, like the Prime Minister, I am simply dealing with the matter as things are.

Mr. Bellenger: The Prime Minister said that there would be roughly two weeks between the nomination of candidates and polling day after the seven-and-a-half weeks. Will my right hon. Friend say how it will be possible in that time to get the poll of the troops serving overseas?

Mr. Morrison: I am not going to get so far as that, because it is a pretty big subject. It is all dealt with in the Act of 1943.

Commander King-Hall: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to remind him that he said, in reply to a question, that he was looking into the matter, and that if the machine could be speeded up his mind was still open to the possibility that the register might be printed and reprinted every six months, so that something was available? Otherwise, there will be five weeks during which candidates will be milling round without any register.

Mr. Morrison: If I can give any advice to candidates, it will be not to mill round for five weeks. They will be very bored if they make the campaign too long, but that is their business and, may be, their funeral. I cannot say more than I have said. If a definite opportunity should arise for speeding up the making of the register—and I think this is contemplated under the Act of 1943—I shall be happy to take it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale raised a point about the possibility of the country being without a Parliament for two months.

Mr. A. Bevan: Or more.

Mr. Morrison: Possibly more. That period was in the mind of the Government when the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943, was passed. I do not like the idea of so long a period without the country having a Parliament. We, therefore, considered what should be done, and Section 3 of that Act provides this:
If, at any time when no register under this Part of this Act for the election of members to serve in a new Parliament is in force, His Majesty is pleased, by a proclamation dissolving a Parliament and summoning a new Parliament, to dissolve the Parliament on a future date fixed by the proclamation,—

(a) the date so fixed shall not be later than the day on which the register under this Part of this Act for the election of members to serve in the new Parliament comes into force; and
(b) any writ for the election of a member to serve in the existing Parliament issued but not returned before the date of the proclamation shall be superseded as if the Parliament had been dissolved on the date of the proclamation."
What we sought to do there was to enable the period without a Parliament to be shortened by the Proclamation stating a date in advance of its own date when the dissolution should be effective.

Mr. Bevan: That is to say, the actual date of the election will be fixed in advance of the date of dissolution?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, it comes to that.

Mr. Bowles: The dissolution might be postponed for five weeks, possibly?

Mr. Morrison: It might name a date in advance. I do not know whether there would be discussions or whether it would be practicable to have discussions through the usual channels. It would, however, be a curious Parliament during those few weeks. It would be a Parliament which knew it was doomed to dissolution. Nevertheless, I should have thought that during that time some business of a non-controversial character could be handled, though the House might be in a mood to deal with controversial business. If it only dealt with non-controversial business, or met for the purpose of examining and questioning Ministers, two of the points which have been made would be met. One is that we would be too long without a Parliament, and secondly what might otherwise be an


unduly long election campaign would tend to be shortened. If candidates like to make the campaign long there is nothing to stop them, but I think that broad commonsense will prevail and this is that there is not much advantage in spreading it out.

Mr. A. Bevan: My right hon. Friend has made the point very clear. As a matter of fact, a constitutional novelty would be introduced. After the date of the dissolution fixed by His Majesty the date of the election would be announced, and between those two dates the writs would be issued.

Mr. Morrison: Yes.

Mr. Bevan: In those circumstances, there appears to be no valid reason why the date between the issue of the writs and the date of the recall of Parliament should not be slightly longer.

Mr. Morrison: I follow my hon. Friend's meaning, and I am not quite sure of the proper answer on the point. Anyway, his observations are on the records of the House, and I will take them into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale gave us, as usual, a most interesting speech, in which he took every advantage of the width of the Debate. He was not quite as appreciative of his Labour colleagues who are Members of the Government as he might have been. I live in eternal hope that one of these days he will express great appreciation. He argued—at any rate, he implied and I thought he argued—that the purpose of Labour in entering the Government was as a demonstration to the nation of the highest spiritual unity. They were, so to speak a body of fraternal delegates who had come together to convey the greetings of the general population to the Prime Minister and to intimate to him and his colleagues in the Government that we wanted to win the war. We were there to demonstrate our wish to end it victoriously and as soon as possible. It is true that Labour entered the Government partly, as did other parties, in that mood, and that the demonstration of national unity was an element. That demonstration of national unity was useful in itself, but I should hesitate to say, and I should be very sorry to feel, that although we have drawn the rate for the job as we have gone along, we had joined in the Govern-

ment only for the purpose of a demonstration of unity. We have done a job of work as have other Members of the Government.

Mr. John Wilmot: I think that fact is very widely appreciated throughout the country.

Mr. Morrison: I thank my hon. Friend very much.

Mr. A. Bevan: While I do not want to join in the encomiums given to the right hon. Gentleman by the Parliamentary Private Secretary, perhaps I might say that I do not deprecate the services rendered by Labour Ministers, except in the respect that perhaps even greater services might have been rendered from other benches.

Mr. Morrison: That is at any rate a negative admission that we have not done any harm. That is something, at any rate. We are getting on. If I speak long enough perhaps I shall get my hon. Friend into a mood of modified enthusiasm about the Labour Ministers in the Government. We joined, as did Members of other parties, for the purpose of doing a job of work and we have tried to do it to the best of our abilities and with the full energy of Which we were capable. Let me add that the formation of this Government was not merely a demonstration of national unity but that it had very practical purposes. I remember sitting on that Bench, opposite the Government, when a previous Administration existed, at the beginning of the war and up to the formation of this Government. We were, invited to join it, as is known, and we declined. I do not in the least wish to be controversial as to the nature of that Government or our decision, with which I personally agreed. I say nothing about that Administration at all, and it would not be right that I should.
I say this, however, that I am sure that it will be generally agreed that that period in the prosecution of the war might well have been more successful if that Government had found it possible, or if it had been possible, for all the major political parties to have been members of it. I am not apportioning blame or credit. I am certain that the present Government would not have been as effective and as successful in the actual prosecution of the war as they have undoubtedly been if


they had not been completely representative of the major political parties in Parliament. Even in the early days of the war, under Mr. Chamberlain's Government, the Labour Party and the Labour benches, I think it will be agreed, were not unhelpful to that Government. We did not obstruct. We did not play the fool, but we were outside, we were not sharing the responsibilities, and that was bound to have its effect on the administration. I personally agreed with my Labour colleagues on the decision that they took about it. The existence of this Government during the war has not been a mere gesture of national unity. It has been a valuable combination, to which each of the political parties has made its full contribution. Each of the political parties has done so, and it is of no use to try to pick and choose. They have played their part according to their abilities, competence and undoubted enthusiasm for the winning of the war.
I think I have now dealt, generally speaking, with the matters that have been raised. I will not go into points concerning party discipline. I was surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale talking about party discipline for such a long time. I thought that was a subject that he would not want to drag up too frequently.

Mr. A. Bevan: Why not?

Mr. Morrison: He having so notoriously, and indeed in his speech, denounced excessive party discipline; I thought that he was on the verge of trying to impose some party discipline on the Conservatives. I have often noticed that he who imposes party discipline is different from him who receives it; perhaps that application of this rule is as capable of coming from me as from my hon. Friend. I can only thank the House very much for the generous way in which it has received the Bill and for the appreciation which has been rightly expressed about the very fine public-spirited speech of the Prime Minister in moving the Second Reading. I shall be grateful if the House will give us the Second Reading, and the other stages as soon as possible, in order that the Bill may go to the other place and that it may be once more possible for this Measure to be on the Statute Book.

2.54 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I will not stand for more than one minute between the House and the Second Reading, but I want to elaborate one point which I made in an interruption of my right hon. Friend, and I thank him for his customary courtesy in not objecting to it. I believe I should be the last person to attempt to give—and it would be most improper of me to give—anything like a constitutional lecture, but I am not quite sure that in the course of the proceedings it has been quite clearly appreciated what the actual constitutional position is. Let us assume that the Government are in office within the period covered by the Bill. It might happen that there would be a revolt of one or other of the larger parties composing the Government. I do not say that a revolt of the Liberal Party would be equally important. It would be on a much smaller scale, because of the numbers involved. Assume that the Tory Party or the Labour Party gave a more or less block vote against the Government and that the Prime Minister, as I think he would have to do, resigned. What then happens?
The Crown presumably sends for the Prime Minister and asks him whether he is prepared to form another Government. If the Prime Minister says: "No, I am not, because both the major parties in the State have voted against me," what then happens? It seems to be assumed in some quarters that there would immediately be a dissolution. I do not think there would be anything of the sort. The Crown would send for the Leader of the Opposition and ask whether he would form a Government or not. He might easily send for some Minister of the Government which had resigned or of which the head had resigned. It is often forgotten that the Prime Minister has absolute power of resignation in his hands. It is nothing to do with his Cabinet or with anybody. He can at any moment say "I resign." The Crown then sends for some other member of the Government.
Let me warn all members of the Government of whatever party—it might even be my right hon. Friend himself—that the public pressure would be enormous, assuming that the war was not over, for all-party government to continue. People


would ask: Are we to be deprived of all-party Government because this Government have been destroyed? I think Ministers have to be a bit cautious in predicting the course of events in the future, which might not be quite as much in their hands as they may suppose. The situation would be partly governed by constitutional circumstances and largely by the state of public opinion at the time, and I think that the demand would be very strong that this country should not be left in a state of interregnum.

Sir P. Harris: Exactly as it was in 1940?

Earl Winterton: Yes, 1940 is a case in point. There is only one other point I wish to refer to. I take no side, because I do not want to say whether I want to see party government or not. No wise old hand, as I believe and hope I am, wants to disclose his hand before the election. There is plenty of time to see which way the cat jumps before the election, if I might indulge in a cynical observation. Assuming that the war is already over, that is to say that organised resistance has ceased, but there is still a huge Army of Occupation in Germany, and sniping is going on, as it may go on for years, against that Army; that there is civil war in one or more European countries—we shall be very fortunate if we can get through without it; and that we have still the issue of Japan on our hands; are the leaders of all parties going to say that that is the time to go back to party politics? I am not at all sure that the party who took that view would get a majority at the next election.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the Noble Lord forgotten that the Prime Minister may recommend the King to proclaim a dissolution?

Earl Winterton: Yes, that is quite likely. The hon. Gentleman is a student of our constitutional procedure, but I was for the moment addressing myself to the other point—and I thank the House for listening to me—that there seems to be an assumption that when the country is faced with one of the gravest set of problems in the history of the world it will be popular to go back to pure Socialism or pure Toryism. Hon. Members may be right and I may be wrong, but I think I am right. I think there would be very great resent-

meat on the part of the people of the country.

Mr. H. Morrison: Perhaps I may, by leave of the House, say just two things in response to the Noble Lord. In what I said I did, of course, allow for possible exceptions or unforeseen circumstances, and I do not dissent in principle from what he has said as to the broad working of the Constitution. Further, I ought to have expressed, and I do now, my very grateful appreciation for the kindly speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on behalf of the Liberal Party in supporting the Bill. I would not like my right hon. Friend to think I was discourteous.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Pym.]

Committee upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (WAR MARRIAGES) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of jurisdiction of High Court to certain marriages irrespective of domicile.)

3.0 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (b.)
The Committee will recollect that when the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, was passed, we extended the grounds of divorce and made it possible for marriages to be dissolved for cruelty, desertion and incurable insanity in addition to infidelity. Until then infidelity had been the only ground for divorce in this country, and hon. Members who were in the House at that time will remember that there was very strong opposition in the country to extending the grounds for divorce for any reason whatsoever. There is a very strong case to be made out—whether or not any one agrees with it—for the view that marriage is so sacred a sacrament, and an institution so vital to the fabric and health of society, that in no circumstances whatever should it be possible to terminate it. There is no case, however, for unjust divorce laws, and I maintain that if the


present Bill goes through our divorce laws will not only be far more unjust in the future than they have been in the past, but will also be absolutely chaotic. In the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, a provision was inserted which made it impossible for any marriage in this country to be broken on any grounds whatsoever until the parties had been married for three years, except in cases of very exceptional depravity or hardship.
What are we trying to do under this War Marriages Bill? We are wiping away that three-year provision, but are we wiping it away for every one who marries during the course of the war? Not at all. If an English girl marries an Englishman or a Colonial, or a foreigner, who is domiciled in this country, she has to wait for three years before she can institute divorce proceedings, no matter what her marriage partner's conduct may be. I want Members to understand this point. Two Polish brothers might come over to this country in the early days of the war. Let us suppose that one of them starts a little business here and intends to make this country his home and becomes, therefore, domiciled in this country.
Then he is called up under the National Service Acts and goes off to Poland. His wife never sees him again. He is unfaithful to her; he is cruel; he commits every crime which a husband can commit, but because he says that he started a business here, and is domiciled in this country, that girl cannot proceed to terminate her marriage for three years. Her sister may marry the Pole's brother, who may not have started a business in this country, and never became domiciled here. Simply because he is not domiciled in this country she, if he gives her cause, can start divorce proceedings within one week of the date of the marriage.
I realise that marriage in war-time is entered into in an emotional state of mind, and that is the reason which the Government give for bringing in this Bill. The Solicitor-General, in answer to my contention that there was no case for wiping away the three-year clause, said, when winding up the Second Reading, that in these cases where marriage breaks down it is almost certain to break down early. He went on:
I commend to the House a passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), in which he dealt with the emotional background of these marriages, in

aid of this point I am making—they will agree that they are likely to break down early. If we are going to give any remedy for this difficulty, it has to be a speedy remedy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 90.]
I do ask the Attorney-General, in all seriousness, why the emotional background to marriage is more emotional if you marry in war-time a man who is domiciled overseas, than if you marry a man who is domiciled in this country. You may marry a man who is domiciled in this country, but you may never have a chance of living with him in war-time. You may see very little of him. He may be moved overseas very shortly after the date of marriage. Is the Attorney-General going to tell me that because he is domiciled in this country there is, at least, a greater possibility of knowing his family? If that is so, may I ask the Attorney-General since when were "in-laws" considered an aid to the stability of marriage? Indeed, many of those men who are domiciled in this country during the war period will not be Englishmen. They will not have their relations over here. You will know no more of their background than if they were domiciled overseas.
I have said that what we do we must attempt to make just. I consider the whole Bill unjust because I think the Government should have dealt with the domicile of the woman. What I am arguing now is that they have no right whatever to sweep away the three-year Clause for one section of women, for a certain length of time, and to retain it for another section of women for all time. At least let us show consistency and make some attempt at justice. Do not let us have marriage Laws which are more difficult for girls who marry their own countrymen or men domiciled in their own country, than for women married to men domiciled overseas. I do not wish to detain the Committee long but this is a serious point. It is going to create appalling anomalies and appalling injustice. Considering how strong the feeling was that you should not break marriages before the parties at least had had a chance of knowing one another, and that the institution of marriage should be regarded as a serious undertaking, the Government have no right, and have never been given a mandate, to sweep away that provision in this hurried fashion, without any consultation with the heads of the Churches. This Bill


is being hurried through in a way which would not have been possible if greater consideration and greater publicity had been given to it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I subscribe fully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has said, but I think that in her emotional resentment against a Bill of which she obviously disapproves she has not given sufficient credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I fully realise that he has done what he considered to be the best for a very large number of our people, especially our British girls, but at the same time I am afraid, to judge by the letter published by my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) in "The Times" this morning, he has created an even larger number of anomalies than those he has sought to rectify. I think also—and of course I do not say this in any spirit of antagonism—that the Bill was drafted by an English draftsman, possibly with not sufficient knowledge of Scottish law. Although my right hon. and learned Friend has taken into full consideration—

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The Scottish Clause has, of course, been drafted by a Scottish draftsman.

Sir T. Moore: No doubt that is true. I take it I can speak on the Scottish aspect although we have not come to that part of the Bill which deals particularly with Scotland?

The Chairman: No, I do not think so. The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to speak on the Clause until we reach it.

Sir T. Moore: This Bill applies to the whole of Great Britain, and this particular Amendment affects Scottish as well as English girls.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of Order, is it not the case that Clause 2, which makes Clause 1 applicable to Scotland, automatically brings the discussion on the Scottish position in Order on Clause 1?

Sir T. Moore: If I may, with great respect, suggest it, Major Milner, perhaps I might be in Order in dealing very briefly with the small point I wish to make in regard to this Amendment. I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to realise that, in Scotland, desertion has been a ground for divorce since 1573, something like 400 years, whereas in England it only became a ground for divorce in 1937, after the passage of my hon. and gallant Friend's Act. In Scotland, desertion after four years was a subject for divorce, but by my hon. and gallant Friend's Act it became three years in 1938. That is merely to show the background that in Scotland we were something like 400 years ahead of England.

Mr. Kirkwood: We always were.

Sir T. Moore: It was really with the purpose of giving my hon. Friend the opportunity to say so, that I made the point.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not like to hear an Irish accent speaking on behalf of Scotland.

3.15 p.m.

Sir T. Moore: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." A voice even with an Irish accent can tell the truth just as well as the dour Doric of my hon. Friend. The point I wish to make will reveal even more fully the case made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1919, came into force on 2nd July, 1919, and under that Act actions were required to be raised within one year. That obviously shows that the Act was drafted, by an English draftsman ignorant of Scottish law. Take the case of a Scottish girl who was married to a soldier from Northern Rhodesia on 1st July—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is clearly under a misapprehension. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, did not apply to Scotland.

Sir T. Moore: That may be true, but it does not affect the strength of my argument. I was merely introducing that statement to show that the Parliamentary draftsman was not thoroughly acquainted with Scottish law, but that reference of mine to the 1937 Act has very little to do with the case I am making. It was merely to show there was a certain lack


of co-operation between the Scottish and English Law Officers in the drafting of these divorce Measures. To return to my point. Take the case of a Scots girl who married a soldier from Northern Rhodesia on 1st July, 1919. I want particularly to stress the dates.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member would be wise to leave his point until we come to Clause 2. His point has no application to the present Clause, or the Amendment.

Sir T. Moore: I am sorry I have not been given sufficient time to develop my argument to show how relevant it is to my hon. Friend's argument, but if it is your desire, Major Milner, that I should repeat what I am saying on the next Clause, I obey your Ruling.

Mr. Kirkwood: We do not want the Englishmen to get the Scots lassies.

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: The hon. and gallant for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) is of course particularly interested in the question of how this Bill affects the position in Scotland. It may well be that as in other respects, the Scottish divorce law is better than the law which prevails in this country.

The Chairman: We should not discuss that. The Section in the Matrimonial Causes Act with which it is sought to deal under this Amendment, did not apply to Scotland. Therefore, the question of Scotland does not apply.

Mr. Duckworth: I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, and I return to the Amendment we are discussing. I wish very briefly to support strongly the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) because my name appears over a subsequent Amendment, which deals with the same principle in a different way. I have come to the conclusion that we members failed, at the time of the Second Reading of this Bill, to grasp the full significance of the Bill, and of the gross injustice which it will create. We are being asked in this Clause to create a special and privileged class of petitioners for divorce. We are being asked, in fact, to confer a divorce premium on any marriage between an English woman and a man who is not domiciled in this country. It may very well be that this Bill is one to deal with a special and limited problem created by the war, but

I say that equally this Bill is one to encourage and facilitate ill-considered hasty war-time marriages through the very class of special and privileged people who will be created by this Clause. Some of the absurdities and injustices and anomalies that are going to arise have been very clearly pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert), with his usual ability, in the letter which was published in "The Times" this morning.

The Chairman: That is not the point before the Committee at the moment. The question of the Bill and its particular anomalies does not arise on this Amendment. The only question is whether the provision of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, restricting the right to divorce within a period of three years after marriage, shall or shall not apply.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: Is not my hon. Friend entitled to refer to the anomalies arising from the fact that Section 1 of the 1937 Act will apply to certain citizens and not to others?

Mr. Duckworth: I will try to keep within the bounds of your Ruling, Major Milner, but it seems to me that I am entitled to call attention to the situation which will be created by this proviso. I should like to emphasise again one simple and glaring injustice that the proviso will result in. Take the case of two Englishwomen, living next door to each other, who were married at exactly the same time—after September, 1939. The first married an Englishman, who goes to serve abroad with the British Army. He deserts here, there is adultery, he gives cause for divorce; but she cannot in any circumstances begin proceedings for divorce until three years after the marriage.

The Attorney-General: I am sure my hon. Friend wants to be accurate. It is not an absolute bar: there is power in the Court to grant divorce in cases of exceptional hardship.

Mr. Duckworth: That may be so in the case of exceptional hardship, but in the ordinary way there can be no divorce until the three years have expired. Take the case of the woman next door. She marries an American soldier, who also goes abroad,


deserts her, and commits adultery; and she can begin proceedings at once, without any delay. How can that situation possibly be justified? I shall be interested to hear the arguments that are brought forward to meet the criticism of this sort of case. No one can deny that the war creates special problems; I am very well aware of that. There is certainly a case for this Bill, provided that it is fair to all, and that the same conditions are made applicable to all similar cases. This is a special war-time problem. Personally, I should prefer to waive the three years' proviso in all cases coming under this Bill.
It is true that the divorce law presents immense difficulties, and particularly where marriage between people of different nationalities is involved; but, because there are injustices and hard cases and anomalies, there can be no excuse for seeking to remove them by creating still further injustices. It is well known that in the United States there are divorce laws which are a grotesque farce, and which make marriage a hollow mockery. There we have an example of what to avoid. This Amendment would bring the Bill into line with the existing law. We should be creating no special classes if it were accepted. For that reason, I support the arguments put forward with such force by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Hardie: I ask the Attorney-General not to accept the Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), who has pointed out the anomalies that women who marry Englishmen have to suffer under this Bill, but I have never taken the attitude that, because some people do not benefit, we should penalise that section of the community that would benefit. We should deal with the matter in a very different manner. I agree that, as a war-time Measure, it is unsatisfactory that you should free only one section of the community from certain restrictions, but I am not prepared to say that because this Bill does not cover all the war-time marriages, as I think it ought to do, I would not grant this relief to those who are covered by the Bill. Many English girls are married to foreigners, and they should be allowed the privilege of instituting a divorce action in this

country, without going to a foreign country. I would hesitate to take away that privilege, just because another section is not covered.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I do not know that there is very much to add to the excellent speeches we have heard from my hon. Friends. But, as one of the Parliamentary originators of this Clause, which it is proposed to excise, may I say a word about the merits of the Clause? I should like to dismiss the legend that it was brought in at a later date as a sop to please the Church. It was part of the original draft of the Bill, and I believe very much in the version left in—not necessarily in the original version—after Amendment in another place. This Section has two purposes. One is to discourage reckless divorce, and the other to discourage reckless marriage. Although one cannot prove a negative, there is reason to believe that this Clause has done good. I talk to a number of young people who are about to marry, and I always say to them, "Do you know about Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act?" Many of them say, ruefully, "Yes we do." Although I receive many letters about divorce every day, I have never yet had a single letter complaining about the hardships or injustices of this Section.
Let us look at the type of case to which it applies. We are not talking about desertion, because you have to wait three years in that case, anyhow. We are not talking about insanity, because you have to wait five years in that case. We are talking about cases of adultery or cruelty. Cruelty begins in the home, and the hypothesis is that in these cases no home has been set up. Therefore, we are talking in the main about adultery cases. I think we all agree that one single case of adultery does not always, and need not always, and should not always, break up a marriage. That was at one time almost a doctrine of the divorce court. It means to say that, although, technically, divorce can be had for one of adultery, in a great many cases it is a good thing to give a chance of reconciliation.

3.30 p.m.

Mrs. Hardie: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that that is for the people themselves to consider—whether it is justified or not?

Petty Officer Herbert: All I say is that Parliament accepted that Clause in the Act of 1927. I am not saying I am right about it, but that, if it is wrong, let us cut it out for everybody in the sort of general Measure which the Solicitor-General rather vaguely foreshadowed. If it is not, if it has done good, and that is the evidence so far, then let us see whether it cannot do good in the kind of marriages we are discussing in this Bill. We are talking about getting divorce immediately for one act of adultery. We have heard in the Debates on this Bill that these marriages are made in an "emotional atmosphere" that people are carried away by uniforms and so on—though as the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has said nobody is carried away emotionally by a British uniform, it is only by foreign ones. The man goes abroad, and goes astray—or perhaps the wife. He comes back, and under this paragraph there can be a divorce at once. But there may be a child, or a child coming, and what we say is that there may still be a chance for reconciliation. What the Bill says is that it is automatically a case of "exceptional hardship" to marry an American or a Pole. I apologise for mentioning Americans and Poles—of course there are others, but one must give examples. What the Bill says to them is, "You have married an English girl. You have only to go to another hotel with another English girl, and there can be a divorce at once. Then you can go off to your own country and marry another girl, leaving perhaps two English girls, with children, to be provided for by the State." So that the real question before the Committee is: Should we say that one act of adultery may immediately break up a marriage between an American husband and an English wife, when that is not possible for the English husband, whether he marries an English or an American wife?

The Attorney-General: I have listened with great care to all the speeches, but I remain of opinion that it is right in this Bill, dealing with the circumstances with which it does deal, to retain this proviso. Let me say a word or two about the provision itself. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) knows, I played a considerable part in assisting him in the Measure which is so rightly

associated with his name. What we were considering, of course, was the general law to be applied to marriages between people in this country. There are always exceptional cases, but we were considering the normal cases where the man and his home are here, where the girl and her home are here, and, very often, in the same village or town or part of a great city. In defending this position, my hon. and gallant Friend said then, as he has said to-day, that one of the reasons for it, was a chance of reconciliation. Of course, where the families are in touch with each other, if there is desertion, or the marriage breaks up, and the husband leaves his wife as a result of adultery, or without adultery, there is a far greater chance of reconciliation if both parties remain in this country. The parents may get together, because both may be in the same locality.
We were also considering the normal marriage in normal circumstances, where there is continuous cohabitation from the date of marriage for the first three years, or, indeed, until the marriage breaks up. In spite of that, in the form in which the Clause was finally carried into the Act, there was a proviso that, in cases of exceptional hardship, the Court has discretion to allow a petition to be presented. It was not an absolute right. When considering this Bill, we were faced with a problem which is the issue in this Amendment—Are the circumstances so different from the normal circumstances contemplated when Parliament passed this proviso that it would be right to abrogate it in dealing with this particular class of marriage?
I do not complain of people taking a different view, but I ask the Committee to take the view embodied in the Bill, that the circumstances are sufficiently different to make it wrong to apply this three years' proviso to the type of marriage with which we are dealing. Let us see what are the different circumstances. First, in the vast majority of cases, continuous cohabitation is impossible. Secondly, not only may continuous cohabitation be impossible, but there may be fairly prolonged absence of the husband overseas. Thirdly, the husband's home will not be here, or the home of his relatives, and, if he commits adultery, and goes to another part of the country, the chances of reconciliation are far less


than in the case of the ordinary English marriage.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I have followed with great interest what the learned Attorney-General has said, but is he really raising anything different from the circumstances of the British Navy, or, indeed, of the British Army?

The Attorney-General: I have already said that some of these provisions apply only to British marriages in present circumstances. I will give reasons later, why I do not think it would be right to make alterations applying to British marriages. We are dealing with what is admitted to be a real problem, which some people have looked at very closely, and I cannot understand the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend that this special problem does not demand special treatment. I cannot understand the argument which seems to say that, in these exceptional circumstances, in which there are a vast number of men from overseas away from their homes and families, who have contracted marriages in the special circumstances of war, it is odd that we should have special provision for dealing with this special problem. I think it will be quite impossible for anybody here to forecast what line the court would take if, in the type of case with which this Bill deals, the petitioner said it was a case of special hardship, or if she said, "I married this man from overseas, and I was carried away by his coming over here to fight, but he turned out a very unpleasant husband, has committed adultery and I want to be free of him." If you say that those circumstances mean special hardship, you might say that, in some British cases, war circumstances have prevented continuous cohabitation in the early months of marriage, which is one of the most firm bases of continuous happy marriage.
It may well be that the court will view that as a circumstance of exceptional hardship. I am not sure how wide the courts might exercise this in the case of a purely British wife, where many of the circumstances to which I refer, except the absence of the family which is very important from the point of view of reconciliation, may arise. We do not think it would be fair to leave it simply to these discretionary words. Whether the cir-

cumstances justify abrogating the three years' rule, even with the discretionary door through which hard cases could go, I am firmly convinced that the problem which faces us in these overseas marriages is a special problem and requires special treatment. I am also convinced that, on the whole, it is right to abrogate this three years' rule in the case of such marriages.
My hon. Friends say to me that some at any rate of the circumstances to which I have referred apply to the British marriage where the husband is subject to war service and may be taken away from another part of the country and sent overseas. I agree that that is so. Then they say "If you think this is a bad rule, why do you not abrogate it altogether." There are two reasons for that. One is, that I do not think the circumstances, though to some extent parallel, are parallel all along the line. In the case of the British marriage, the probability is that both parties are in this country and everybody knows that it is the families who are the instruments of reconciliation. In the case of foreign marriages, one side of reconciliation is not here. I gather that the hon. Lady disagrees with what I said and that the majority of the Committee agree with me.
3.45 p.m.
The absence of the family is a very important point on the reconciliation side, which my hon. and gallant Friend used so forcibly when the Bill was read a Second time and has used to-day. I do not think we would be justified in making a permanent alteration in the law applying to British marriages, even for war circumstances, unless there was a far stronger case than any that has been brought before me. We had many cases brought to our notice from time to time and I personally and the Government came to the conclusion that we ought to legislate on those lines in respect of the marriages overseas. I have not had a representation that the three years' rule has been found oppressive in the case of British war marriages. I am convinced that it would be a real obstacle in the way of doing justice and giving them liberty, and I think the special circumstances fully justify the line taken in the Bill to abrogate for this special and limited purpose.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the learned Attorney-General lay


it down that where a British man marries a British girl and there is mental cruelty, separation and adultery owing to absence from this country, neither can sue for divorce for the normal period of three years?

The Attorney-General: That is not so. Under the 1937 Act, one of the grounds on which the court can grant leave within the three years, is exceptional hardship and I should think that cruelty would certainly come within that provision.

Mr. Baxter: If a girl marries and suffers mental cruelty, separation and adultery, she cannot apply until three years are up, but an English girl marrying an American soldier, if the Bill passes, can do so. They might say, "Let us marry because you can fake adultery and we can get divorced as soon as we want." It may be caprice, a drunken romance or a real romance, but always with the thought that the House of Commons says, "Marry an American or a Pole and you need not take it seriously," while at the same time you say to the girl next door, "If you marry an Englishman and things go wrong, there is no redress for you." This girl could marry three Poles or three Americans and could go on marrying and divorcing, and almost thinking she was living on the outskirts of Reno, but the other girl must sacrifice three years. This sounds like a bad Bill. If we are to create this bad precedent of freedom to marry and to get out of it, then why not trust your own people and accept the Amendment and give them the same privilege?

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I wish to protest against the picture that has been drawn of the girls of this country by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I have never mixed with the kind of girls he talked about, but I cannot conceive of British girls marrying in that frivolous spirit. Those I have met and have seen considering the question of marriage have looked upon it as the most serious step in their lives. The whole purpose of marriage is to establish a home with legal rights for the wife and that is the reason why girls enter marriage. To argue against this Clause on the basis of quite exceptional cases would be false and contrary to nature as far as the average family is concerned. But there are circumstances

which support the exceptional nature of this Clause. In our area, there have been an exceptionally large number of marriages of girls with Poles, Norwegians and members of other nations, and it is going to raise a serious problem after the war. Some of these Poles have married, and have been shifted away to other parts of the world, and however much the parties may like one another, circumstances may divorce them and the wives may have no inclination to go to Poland or anywhere else. I would be very sad if girls in my constituency and my area were not able to free themselves at the earliest possible moment and remain in this country as British citizens in cases where these unfortunate marriages occur.

Mrs. Tate: It is because marriage is a serious institution that I moved the Amendment which stands in my name; and I must say with great respect that I was deeply shocked by one of the arguments of the Attorney-General. He said that in the case of an English girl marrying a man domiciled in this country who is moved overseas and who commits adultery, she might go to the court and the court might say, "This is indeed a case of exceptional hardship." Are we now to understand that in addition to the outrageous anomalies already created by this Bill, it is to be left to individual judges to decide what constitutes individual hardship, and that one English girl who marries a man domiciled over here will obtain her freedom in one week, while another will have to wait three years? To my mind the case of the Attorney-General—I say it with great respect, because he will appreciate that we must have different opinions on these things—makes it far worse. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Beverley Baxter). Surely, before girls enter into these marriages with foreigners, it would be better if they realised that marriage is a serious institution, and that it should in no circumstances be broken within three years. In any case, if you have that three-year provision for a marriage with an Englishman, or a man domiciled here—because it is not necessarily an Englishman but any nationality domiciled here—you should have the same rule for a girl who marries a man domiciled overseas. I cannot withdraw my Amendment, and I shall most certainly divide the Committee on it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 38.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[3.56 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Barnes, A. J.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ross Taylor, W.


Beechman, N. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Benson, G.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salt, E. W.


Bernays, Captain R. H.
Hunter, Sir T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Jackson, W. F.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Selley, Sir H. R.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Keatings, Major E. M.
Sidney, Major W. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Kendall, W. D.
Silkin, L.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kimball, Major L.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Kirby, B. V.
Snadden, W. McN.


Bull, B. B.
Kirkwood, D.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Burke, W. A.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Leach, W.
Studholme, Major H. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cape, T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Summers, G. S.


Cary, R. A.
Liddall, W. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Charleton, H. C.
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)


Clarke, Colonel R. S.
Lyons, Colonel A. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Colegate, W. A.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Colman, N. C. D.
McCallum, Major D.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Conant, Major R. J. E.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Thorne, W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
McKinlay, A. S.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Critchley, A.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Culverwell, C. T.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Markham, Major S. F.
Touche, G. C.


Dobbie, W.
Mathers, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Turton, R. H.


Dunglass, Lord
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Dunn, E.
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)
Walker, J.


Eccles, D. M.
Montague, F.
Ward, Col. Sir A. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Watkins, F. C.


Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. McL.


Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Mort, D. L.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Fermoy, Lord
Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.
Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Frankel, D.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Owen, Major Sir G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wilmot, John


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grenfell, D. R.
Price, M. P.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Procter, Major H. A.
Woodburn, A.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pym, L. R.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Quibell, D. J. K.



Groves, T. E.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut, H. V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Mr. Drewe and Major


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Buchan-Hepburn.


Hardie, Mrs. Agnes






NOES.


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
McGhee, H. G.


Apsley, Lady
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Oliver, G. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Petherick, M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bowles, F. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Butcher, H. W.
Hubbard, T. F.
Viant, S. P.


Chater, D.
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Cluse, W. S.
Key, C. W.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Cove, W. G.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.



Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Cundiff, F. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Mrs. Tate and Lieut.-Colonel


Dagger, C.
Loftus, P. C.
Sir Thomas Moore

Petty-Officer Herbert: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, leave out "or for nullity of marriage."
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Attorney-General to assure us that all is well. As I understand the state of the law, if an English girl marries a Newfoundlander—and I mention a Newfoundlander because that is an extreme case—and she goes across to Newfoundland, and subsequently wants to dissolve the marriage, she cannot do so because there is no divorce law there.

The Attorney-General: Does not that point really arise on the next Sub-section?

Petty-Officer Herbert: It will arise again and again. I must ask my right hon. and learned Friend to realise that many Members do not know even as little as I know about the law, and that I was trying to make things clear. If a girl goes over there and has some ground for nullity because the marriage was bigamous, or the husband has venereal disease, or refuses to consummate, then, owing to the extraordinary state of the law, she can come back to England and have the marriage annulled, domicile or not. This proviso excludes from the operation of this Bill, after five years from the appointed day, not only proceedings for divorce, but also for nullity. I want to know whether the Attorney-General is not limiting the facilities which exist already in relation to nullity of marriage? In passing, may I thank the Attorney-General for his very kind compliments, which are entirely undeserved. I hope that in return he will never think that my hon. Friends who were associated with that Act are not fully conscious of, and grateful for, the fine, though unobtrusive, work which he did at the time of the passing of that Act.

The Attorney-General: May I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his kind words, which I entirely reciprocate? At the moment all is harmony between us, although there may be controversy ahead. As regards this Amendment, my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in saying that under the existing law, if the proceedings are brought for nullity, there is wider jurisdiction than if they are brought for divorce. For instance, in the case of a "marriage" that really never was a marriage—where the other party was already married, or there was one or other of

the extended grounds—there is authority for saying that if the marriage was celebrated here, at any rate if both parties were resident here at the time of the proceedings, the court will deal with them. This Bill does not affect that at all. That jurisdiction remains unimpaired. What we did in this Clause—and I think I can explain it without contravening the rules of Order—was that we desired that the Bill should apply to divorce proceedings and nullity proceedings. If the parties are domiciled here, there is the fullest jurisdiction, both in divorce and nullity. In nullity, you may have jurisdiction although there is no domicile, if there is celebration of the marriage and residence at the time of the proceedings. We thought that the simplest thing to say was that in respect of both divorce and nullity the court should have the fullest jurisdiction that it has in both classes of case where there is domicile. We are not impinging on the ordinary rule with regard to nullity; indeed, it would be quite wrong if we did. If the Committee will follow the words in the proviso, which make the point clear, they will see that they say:
Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply.
This Sub-section is governed by earlier words conferring the jurisdiction under this Act. When the time has run out under the proviso it will be quite impossible for any argument even to be suggested that the ordinary Common Law rule as to jurisdiction in nullity cases is applicable to any proceedings that may be taken.

Petty-Officer Herbert: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Tate: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, leave out from "day," to end of Sub-section.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the law shall be the same for men domiciled in this country as it is for men who are domiciled overseas. By the vote taken a few moments ago we have swept away the provision whereby men domiciled overseas and their wives could not institute divorce proceedings in this country in any circumstances whatever for three years. I approve of that


provision, and I deeply deplore that it has been swept away for one section of the community but, as that has been done, I ask that girls who marry men domiciled in this country shall in no wise be at less advantage than girls who marry men domiciled overseas. As the Committee, I believe very wrongly, has seen fit to sweep away the three years' Clause for one section of the community, I ask it to do the same for all marriages covered by the period covered by the Bill. I believe that will be more in conformity with a normal sense of justice and it will at least prevent a large number of the anomalies which the Bill already creates.

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: All the arguments that I have already addressed to the Committee could be brought forward again in support of this Amendment. I was totally unimpressed by the case made by the Attorney-General for creating this distinction. We are being told on the one hand that there is a crying need for the Bill because there are so many hard cases of 20,000 girls who have already married men from the Dominions and, as soon as we attack the Government for creating these fresh anomalies, we are told that most marriages are very happy, even in cases where an English woman is married to a man domiciled out of the country, and that the Bill is only necessary to deal with exceptional cases. If that is so, why should we not make it fair for all and give precisely the same treatment to women who have married their own countrymen? That seems to me to be the whole case for the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mrs. Hardie: I support the Amendment with some diffidence, because we have not this period in Scotland. As a matter of fact our divorce laws are much more progressive and, though Scotland is mainly a religious country, it is not so priest-ridden and we are not dictated to so much in that direction. The three years was put in in view of the possibility of reconciliation. I am not so keen on patched-up marriages but, be that as it may, the position is that you have at present, because of war conditions, young people away from home meeting strangers about whom they know very little and they rush into marriage in a way that they would not do in normal circumstances. In normal times, before a

woman gets married she expects the man to provide a home. That takes a little time and it makes him feel that he has to face up to certain responsibilities.
In war time many people get married without any hope of a home. They are sometimes both in the Services, or the girl may be working, and they go into marriage without thinking seriously about it. They have not had an opportunity to get to know each other properly and to find out whether they can live their lives together. War conditions have made the position very different, even affecting girls who marry Englishmen. Therefore I ask the Attorney-General to consider this and, as he has introduced this alteration of the law to this extent for certain sections, to extend it and make it a war-time measure for all. All the arguments that have been put forward are on the side of the woman, but a colleague of mine once spoke of a case where a young man had married a girl whom he knew very little about and he discovered that she was immoral, and he was informed that he could not bring divorce proceedings for three years. So it cuts both ways. It is just as hard on the man, perhaps more so in some cases than on the woman. It seems to me that the Government might have been a little more courageous and dealt with the problem in a broader way.

Sir T. Moore: There are two objections that I see to the Clause as it stands. Many speakers have referred to the emotional crisis through which many young people pass to-day, but moral codes are weaker and standards of behaviour are lower. It is no reflection on the character of the nation as a whole but it means that we are passing through a very great crisis which affects adolescents, especially young girls. As the Clause stands, it is almost an encouragement to trial marriages. It is so easy to get out of them. There is a small section of young women who barge into marriage simply for the purpose of getting allowances.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): This is not really a point where we can discuss the whole question of marriage. It is a narrow Committee point.

Sir T. Moore: I was merely seeking to elaborate arguments which have been used by preceding speakers, but I hope I


have established my case in regard to these two vital objections to the Clause as it stands.

The Attorney-General: Both my hon. Friends who moved and supported this Amendment frankly told the Committee that it was their way of raising again the issue on which the Committee has just decided against them. I appreciate their frankness, and I hope that in the result, they will not press the Amendment to a Division and make the Committee re-record a decision it so recently recorded. I hope that I appreciate what my hon. Friends have in mind, although I disagree so fundamentally with them, but I am a little surprised at their moving this Amendment, because what would be the result? They propose to sweep away the three years' provision to which all my hon. Friends, I gather, attach importance, as I do, and which, at any rate, as part of the permanent structure, is applied to British marriages whether war-time or other time. It is really a wrecking Amendment. We got the Second Reading of the Bill on the basis that it was a Bill to deal with the marriage of people from overseas. There have been 1,250,000 marriages since the war which have taken place under the 1937 Act, and I gather that in a large number of cases the effects of Clause 1 have been explained to the parties to the marriages by my hon. and gallant Friend—

Petty Officer Herbert: I am not supporting this Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I was just telling the Committee the circumstances in which the parties to these 1,250,000 marriages came to be married. They have taken place under the existing law, including the three years' bar. This Amendment would sweep that aside. For the 500,000 or so marriages which are, at present, subject to the three years' bar my hon. Friends would have that bar removed. I cannot think that my hon. Friends would really press the Committee to make a revolutionary change of that character in a Bill which has received a Second Reading on the basis that it is designed for a far more limited purpose.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Petty Officer Herbert: Is it intended, Mr. Williams, to call my Amendments—in page 2, leave out 3 to 9; and, in line 5, after "together," insert "for not less than three years"?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I am not selecting them.

Petty-Officer Herbert: Then I must say a few words on the Clause. There was a point which was mentioned on Second Reading and the Solicitor-General promised to consider it. I promised to consider it reciprocally, and I put down these Amendments more or less at his invitation. I must say it is rather hard—

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not for any hon. Member to dispute the Rulings of the Chair. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, he can discuss this point on the Question that the Clause stand part, which I have already proposed, but we cannot have a repetition of a discussion we have already had.

Petty-Officer Herbert: I was not disputing the Ruling of the Chair, but I say it is rather hard that Amendments which I put down, almost by arrangement with the Law Officers, should not now be called. I am not sure that I ought not to vote against the Clause. Perhaps I may express my immediate reasons for not liking it. The proviso at the top of page 2 seems to me to be inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the Bill. The Bill says that in these exceptional marriages, in the emotional atmosphere of which we have heard, we should abandon all the ancient rules of domicile that judges have built up over decades and which have become part of the historical legal apparatus of England. We throw them away so long as the parties remain in England. If, however, a girl, having married one of these curious foreigners who come over and fight for us, goes to the land of his domicile and lives there, if only for one day, she loses the benefits of this Bill and all the old mumbo-jumbo of domicile applies to her. I quite agree, and I think the Attorney-General will agree, that there are two different kinds of cases. If the wife goes as she should do, to America or Canada or Australia, and says, "I am going to try and see this thing through and make my marriage a success in a strange country," there is something to be said for the


view that she has submitted herself to the laws of America, or of Canada, or Australia, and it is fair for her to be governed by the matrimonial laws of those countries.
But suppose she is married to a Newfoundlander or a citizen of Eire, where there is no divorce. She goes, meaning to make the marriage work, but there is, say, cruelty, adultery, incest and every sort of matrimonial offence, and she is cut out of this Bill for ever. She cannot be divorced in Newfoundland or Eire, and because of this proviso she cannot resume her domicile in England and get a divorce. That is a great hardship and wholly contrary to the spirit of the Bill. And there is this further point. The girl who stays at home and does not really mean to take the marriage seriously, gets the benefit of the Bill and can get a quick divorce. But the girl who makes an effort and goes out to her husband's country is penalised. Although I would never dream, even in nightmares, of disputing the Rulings of the Chair, I shall always, looking back on my political history, regard it as a misfortune that my Amendments were not called.

Mrs. Tate: I also regret that it has not been possible to discuss these Amendments. We have just had the case of a girl who marries a man domiciled abroad and who is at an advantage compared with her more unfortunate sister who marries a man domiciled in her own country. We are now going to have the case of a girl who attempts to make a success of her marriage and joins her husband in the country of his habitation, to make a home there and fulfil her marriage vows, and who is to be penalised as against her sister who entered lightly into marriage and never intended to follow her husband overseas and make a home there. This is, indeed, carrying the absurdity of the Bill beyond anything that anyone can justify. Nothing could justify the passing of the Clause in its present form and I hope that the Committee, in the interests of justice and morality, will reject it.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Inevitably in a Debate like this we must go over the same ground that successive speakers have covered. I ask the Attorney-General to consider seriously what has been said by the two hon. Members who

have just spoken. We should not say to a woman who is willing to spend the little money she has to go across the seas and try to make a go of her marriage even if at the end of a month or six weeks she sees that it is hopeless, that she must give up the rights of immediate divorce which are retained by another woman who makes no attempt to make her marriage a go. I do not think the Government should ask us to pass a Clause like that. Would it not be possible for the Attorney-General, between now and the Report stage, to consider whether it can be changed, even if the time is limited? In any case, we should not take away the rights of a woman because she tries to fulfil her marriage vows.

4.30 p.m.

Sir T. Moore: Like other hon. Members I feel that I must register my protest at the Attorney-General's seeking to get this Clause through without Amendment. Let hon. Members consider an ordinary case, one of many thousands taking place at the present time. A young girl, who has obviously seen very little of her husband abroad, whom she married largely influenced by emotion, is determined to carry her marriage through. With great courage, therefore, she goes to a strange new country among strange new people. Service conditions have prevented her seeing her husband very often, but now she suddenly finds herself in that strange country with a complete stranger, a man with many qualities of body and mind that horrify her and make any continuance of the marriage impossible. Because of her determination to try to make something of her marriage, to justify the reckless step she originally took, is she to be condemned for all time? I cannot believe that the Attorney-General would seek to get the Committee to accept the Clause without Amendment.

Miss Rathbone: I have listened to the Debate on the Amendment with very great interest and I followed the Debate upon the previous Amendments. I agree with nearly everything that has been said by the critics of the Bill and against the Clause, but I am inclined to think their remarks point to a different conclusion from that which they have reached. They would really like bit by bit to destroy the Bill. but the whole discussion shows me that although the Bill is such a bad


one it removes a certain number of hard cases and anomalies. I am, therefore, inclined to vote for it, not only because it deals with those bad cases, but also because it will create a position so intolerable and so bristling with absurdities and anomalies that the Government will have no choice later but to introduce a new Bill. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the Bill and force the Government into that position. If any hon. Member wants to know the reason why I regard the Bill as bad I can only say that they should read the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), as it brings out the absurdities completely. The whole Bill bristles with them.

Sir Herbert Williams: I agree that there are absurdities in the Bill, but it is also true that 99 per cent. of the cases with which it is designed to deal will be met. All the absurdities arise in the main from exceptional cases. The real problem is created by people in this country marrying soldiers who are domiciled overseas. The woman, by doing so, acquires overseas domicile. If the man goes abroad and sets up housekeeping with somebody else, the wife, because she is legally domiciled in the other country, cannot sue here for divorce. What the Bill does is to open the courts of this country to those women. I read the letter of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) at breakfast, propped up in front of my coffee, but that letter does not alter the fact that the Bill, though it is timid in certain respects, will deal with 99 per cent. of the cases with which it is designed to deal.

Mr. Beverly Baxter: On a point of Order. Are we not discussing Clause 1, Mr. Williams? The hon. Member is talking about the whole Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: I agree that there is substance in the point of Order, and I think that the hon. Member who was addressing the Committee should finish with that point. There has been a great deal of latitude allowed in this discussion, but the hon. Member has mentioned the word "Bill." I hope that that argument will not be taken any further.

Sir H. Williams: Perhaps if the hon. Member who raised the point of Order,

and for whom I have the greatest respect, had read Clause 1 he would have seen that my remarks were relevant to it. Clause 1 (1) states:
In the case of marriages to which this Section applies—
(a) the High Court in England shall have jurisdiction in and in relation to proceedings for divorce or for nullity of marriage as if both parties were at all material times domiciled in England.
My remarks were devoted to that Subsection, which is the essential core of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I agree that the points which have been raised on this question are different from those which we discussed upon the last Amendment. Possibly they might have been raised under an earlier Amendment, which covered the whole of the Sub-section, but I am certainly prepared to deal with them now. I am afraid I disagree with almost everything that was said by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), but I am glad to have her support, by whatever devious and I think mistaken route she has arrived at that decision. I also read at breakfast time the hon. and gallant Member's letter which deals with the Clause and which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). There are one or two mistakes in it. I think the grammar is all right. It illustrates the fact that the hon. and gallant Member and those associated with him approach the problem in a way which is rather different from the approach of myself and a good many hon. Members. I believe there is a good deal to be said for this general principle: Where two people, a man and a woman, agree to marry, and go abroad, it is right that the marriage should be governed by the law of the place where they intend to live.

Mrs. Tate: No.

The Attorney-General: Exactly. That, I think, throws considerable light on the last sentence of my hon. and gallant Friend's letter, in which he says that he is quite sure that a permanent Bill on the lines which he suggests would be non-controversial. He is quite wrong, because he would find himself in controversy with me at once.

Petty Officer Herbert: What I wrote was "Controversial, politically," in the party political sense.

The Attorney-General: But those are the most difficult Bills of all to get through the House of Commons. One cannot rely upon the Whips or upon those who are not with us at the moment. My hon. and gallant Friend would agree that his own Measure was a standing example of a Bill which did not arouse political controversy but it took very long, and yet he blames Parliament and the Government for not having dealt with divorce, as, he said, it raises controversies which cut across political parties. There is a principle raised. I think the right principle is that where two parties agree to marry the proper law is the law of the place where they intend to have their home. If, for example, I intended to marry and to live in a Catholic country, I should not object to being subjected to those laws, even though I was not a Catholic. If I were engaged to somebody living in a State where you can divorce by putting a penny in the slot, you realise that those are the circumstances, and that that is the law which governs your marriage.

Sir T. Moore: Does the Attorney-General expect a girl who marries a Catholic to know that there is no divorce law in Eire?

The Attorney-General: I was saying what I think is right in principle. Happily, when one gets married one is not contemplating divorce. We say that where the marriage is broken up and one party is domiciled abroad, before they have gone back to the country of domicile and intended home, we take jurisdiction, but that if they have gone back the ordinary rule should apply and only the courts of that country should have jurisdiction, applying the laws of that country. They may be much easier than ours or they may be much more strict. I have thought about this question since my hon. and learned Friend gave the undertaking. I think that if we were dealing with a time when couples could go for short holidays here, there and everywhere, there might have been a great deal of force in trying to get in some sort of code which could cut out, say, a week-end in Newfoundland or a casual short holiday in the United States. But these things are really not practicable in

the present circumstances. If, after the war, they go back to the country of the man's home, it is almost certain they will be going back to take up their married life there.
I hope my hon. Friends will not vote against the Clause. I believe it does a great many things they want done. I believe that the anomalies have been greatly exaggerated, and on this question of residence I think one can really safely leave the Bill as it is, because I do not think there will be these casual visits which, I agree, one ought to meet if they were likely. But once we try to introduce a code we shall be in difficulties. Are we going to say three months, six months, or what? If we are going to try and base it on the intention of the parties when they go there, it would complicate the Measure and give another question to be argued about, another troublesome question as to jurisdiction. If we are to take simply a flat time such as six months, I believe we shall be in further difficulties. Suppose the two parties go together to a State of America, or wherever it may be, the marriage is obviously not broken up, because the condition is they must have resided together.

Mr. Baxter: My right hon. and learned Friend keeps on saying "If they go together." He is stating something that will not happen. Overseas soldiers do not take their wives with them on transports. They do not go together.

The Attorney-General: Unless they reside together the Sub-section which is objected to does not apply to them. That is exactly the point I am making. My hon. Friend has not followed the discussion, if he will allow me to say so.

Mr. Baxter: Yes, I have.

The Attorney-General: Then I cannot understand why my hon. Friend interrupted.

Mr. Baxter: What I really meant was that the tragedy which will come from this relates to foreign soldiers who marry here, go to the battlefields and never come back again; they return to their own countries in Europe or go overseas, to the Dominions or America, and never get back here to the girl they marry. We are trying to deal with the case of the girl who goes out and tries to make her mar-


riage a success. The Attorney-General seems to ignore that as being the exception, whereas it will be the rule.

The Attorney-General: I really cannot think that after a soldier has gone away and deserted his wife, and the various sorts of things we have heard of have happened, she will cross the seas, unless he is ready to welcome her and set up house with her, and is ready to live with her. If one starts legislating for cases as unlikely as that our Bills will become of a length which will arouse even more the indignation of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).
If I may pick up my argument about the difficulty about a six months' residence, let us take a case where the parties live together, and let us assume that residence together starts in the country of the husband's domicile, and all appears to be as happy as a marriage bell. Then it afterwards breaks up. If that happens the marriage will normally break up in that country. In nine cases out of ten, that being their home, the divorce laws of that country will apply.
[An HON. MEMBER: "If any."] I know; that is where we differ. If a marriage is arranged and the intended home is in a country where divorce laws are stricter than ours, I think it is right that those laws should apply.

4.45 p.m.

Petty Officer Herbert: The point I tried to make is that the Bill is based on marriages made in an exceptional emotional atmosphere—the uniforms and so on—and for these exceptional marriages you do an exceptional thing, and give up the rule of domicile. But when you get to this proviso, you put back all the domicile business. Why not keep the same principle for all these exceptional cases?

The Attorney-General: I think it is quite plain. We say that in the exceptional circumstances, if the marriage breaks up before they go back to the country of domicile, we take jurisdiction; but not if they go back to the country of domicile. We do not think we should alter the general law. Let me put it the other way round. I think we have to consider this from the point of view of what we should recognise in foreign countries. If an Englishman brings home his wife, and they set up their home here, although the marriage was in some other part of the

world, we should regard that marriage as subject to our laws, and should not be very ready to accept a divorce if the wife went back to the place of marriage, took proceedings and got a divorce simply because the marriage was originally contracted there. I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's point. I have thought about it, but I believe in all the circumstances it will not be a hardship to stick to residence. I think that to introduce a code would be to create more anomalies than would be removed. I hope my hon. Friends will not press the opposition to the Clause.

Mrs. Tate: With all due respect to the Attorney-General, he made one exceedingly important statement which really gets right to the bottom of this Bill. He said that if a couple marry and go to another country we consider that to be the country which they consider to be their home. It is nothing of the sort; it is the country which the man considers to be his home under this Bill. Take the case of an English girl who marries during the war a man from Southern Ireland, who has up to date been domiciled here. He hears of work in Southern Ireland, and instead of coming back to this country after his military service, he goes direct to Southern Ireland. The girl, because she is married to him, because she wants to make her marriage a success, goes to Southern Ireland. It is all very well to talk of the difficulties of crossing the sea, but it will not be very difficult to get to Southern Ireland for five years after the war. Because she has gone to Southern Ireland to try to attempt to make her marriage a reality, that girl, if she finds when she gets there that the man has committed adultery, is cruel, is incestuous, anything you like, is forever debarred from seeking her freedom because she has gone there, even if it is only for one day.

Sir H. Williams: He was domiciled here, according to the hon. Lady's thesis.

Mrs. Tate: I have stated that this man has domiciled himself in Southern Ireland. When his domicile becomes Southern Ireland his wife becomes domiciled there. Although she may never have been there she is subject to the laws of the country. The Attorney-General asks if it would not be difficult if a certain period of time was fixed, and says that we should not like it at all if a man from the Dominions came


here, settled here and lived here, and got a divorce in another country. Surely the Attorney-General must be as well aware as I am that if a couple come here from New Zealand, live here, and the marriage fails, and the wife goes back to New Zealand, and is domiciled there for three years, she can, under the laws of New Zealand, then call that Dominion her home and divorce her husband under the laws of New Zealand.
That is what is fair and just. If we enabled a girl to say, "This is my home; this is where I intend to live; I demand the protection of the laws of my own country after three years' residence," there would be justice. Under this Clause, it is the woman who tries to make a success of her marriage, who is foolish enough, in order to try to mend a marriage which is likely to break up, to reside in the country of her husband's domicile, even for one day, who is doomed, if there is no divorce law in that country, never to get her freedom. If an attempt to make marriage a success is to be a reason for preventing a woman from ever getting her freedom, that is something to be deplored. I implore the Committee, if they are interested in progress, to reject this Clause.

Sir H. Williams: May I point out that if we do not pass this Clause the woman is still doomed? Under the Clause 99 per cent. will get their freedom, but if the Clause is rejected they are all doomed.

Mrs. Tate: I cannot agree to anything because it would enable a small proportion to get their rights. I want justice, and there certainly is not justice in this Bill.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of jurisdiction of Court of Session to certain marriages irrespective of domicile.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Woodburn: Could the Lord Advocate give some explanation of how this Clause is going to affect girls in Scotland who have married Poles, Norwegians, and people of other nationalities? Many of our girls will have no idea how this is going to affect them. I am very glad to say that, although in my own area a

great many marriages with Poles have taken place, the question of divorce has never arisen, so far as I am aware. I have had cases of girls and Poles finding it not easy to get married, because of difficulties from the religious and regimental points of view, and of other girls who wished to marry Poles wanting to be assured that their husbands would be allowed to settle in this country after the war, but there has been no question of a divorce. But that does not mean that there will not be great difficulties after the war. There will be girls who have got married and who will want their Polish husbands to get domiciled in this country. I feel that if the Government will take steps to facilitate such a thing, a great many of the cases envisaged under this Bill will not occur. I would like the Lord Advocate to tell us, in simple language, how this will affect these girls.

Sir T. Moore: The Committee will appreciate, Mr. Williams, that the Amendments to Clause 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and of my own name are similar. May I ask, with all respect, if it is your intention to call the Amendment in my name?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I have not selected either.

Sir T. Moore: With great respect, those two Amendments deal with the point for which I moved the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, and which was accepted by the Chair as constituting a responsible Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: If that was the case the matter was settled on Second Reading, and it is now out of Order.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): It is a little difficult to explain this Bill in detail in a few sentences, and, therefore, anything I say must be taken subject to the fact that there will be exceptions, which I cannot deal with without exceeding the limits of brevity to which I think the Committee will expect me to adhere. I think it is from the girls' point of view that the hon. Member is asking me to deal with this matter. The position with regard to the man is that if he commits anything which is regarded by the law of Scotland as a matrimonial offence, namely, adultery or desertion, the girl, if she is married within the period to which the Bill applies,


and if she raises her action during the period to which the Bill applies, will be entitled to pursue her husband and to apply for divorce, in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reasons, as if her husband was a Scotsman. If I go into further detail I may obscure the position, but if the provisions of the Bill are adhered to the action will go through in exactly the same way as if the man were a Scotsman who had never left Scotland.

5.0 p.m.

Sir T. Moore: As this will probably be my final word on this Bill, I would ask the Attorney-General to take note of what has been said throughout these discussions, with particular reference to Clause 2 and also to the Title. The Solicitor-General intimated on Second Reading that their minds were open to the considerations of a much larger Measure which might, indeed, embrace these cases to which reference is made in my Amendment to Clause 2. I hope the Attorney-General will still keep his mind open with a view to trying to design a broader scheme which will absorb the many thousands of cases left over from the last war which are unrelieved by any Clause in this Bill.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Attorney-General.]

5.2 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I hope the House will reject the Third Reading of this Bill, against which I, most certainly, propose to vote. Under the guise of helping a few hard cases, or perhaps even a larger number of cases, which, I do not deny, it certainly does, we are passing a Measure which will create untold fresh hard cases and untold anomalies, and is a Bill which, whether you like to admit it or not, does very little more than legalise adultery, provided it is committed with somebody domiciled outside these islands. Moreover, it penalises women who go to the country of their husbands' domicile in an effort to make a success of their marriages where they are in danger of breaking

down. I cannot support a Measure which, no matter whether it does benefit a few hard cases or not, I consider to be unjust, immoral, badly drawn and a prostitution of justice. I therefore hope that the House will support me in refusing the Third Reading.

5.4 p.m.

Petty Officer Herbert: I think we should all like to thank the Attorney-General for his habitual lucid and courteous handling of the Bill. But the more I look at the Bill—and, when I approached it at first, I did my best to approach it in a friendly way because I know the difficulties, and I know that my hon. Friends have tried—the less I like it, and I wonder what would have been said if such a Bill had been brought up on one of our old Private Members' Fridays. I can readily imagine what the Government spokesman would have said: "Hon. Members must not attempt to alter the laws of England in this temporary pettifogging manner; in due course the Government itself will produce a broad and comprehensive Measure." That is what would have been said, and should have been said to itself by the Government.
As a lawyer, I have a great respect for the law. I hate to hear people say that the law is "a hass," because the law ought not to be "a hass," and one of my great objections to the Bill is that it will make the law look like "a hass." May I refer to a letter of mine published to-day, to which reference has been made? I said there, and say again, that when this law has been in operation a few months, I fear the law will again become a mockery. In references made to my letter, some people have thought that it is wrong. I am quite capable of being wrong, hut, if the House will bear with me, I will describe what I assert will be the state of the law when this Bill is carried. There will be numerous categories of citizens married in this country who, after this Bill, will have different rights of access to the courts, and these differences will be due partly to accent and partly to unnecessary illogicalities, either under the present law or added by this Bill, I will read them, and if I am wrong, I hope the Attorney-General will correct me.
In the first case, if an English girl has married a citizen of Eire before the war, or marries one after the war, and the husband, with a domicile in Eire, commits


adultery or is guilty of cruelty or desertion, no divorce is possible for that woman under present law. Is that right? But, if she marries a citizen of Eire now, that is, between September, 1939, and the Appointed Day—he may not be a soldier at all, he may be one of those labourers doing excellent work at Tilbury—with nothing especially emotional about the marriage—if there is one act of adultery she can divorce him at once, in spite of the laws of Eire. That is the first contradiction. Am I right or wrong?
Three, an English girl who marries an American, Canadian, Australian or Pole in war-time, and whose husband commits one act of adultery, can have a divorce in England at once. Four, if an Englishman marries an American girl, now or at any other time, and there is one or many acts of adultery, he has got to wait three years and the wife must wait three years. That is the second contradiction. Observe that if the American husband in the former case settles down in England, he may be living next door to number four: and when they meet at a cocktail party, the American can say, "You are a poor sucker; I can get a divorce at once. You are a Briton and must wait three years."

The Attorney-General: I said "settled here," not "become domiciled here."

Petty-Officer Herbert: The first marriage is to an American, who has settled down but is not domiciled under this Bill. He can get a divorce without the three years' delay.

The Attorney-General: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by settling down. If a man settles down enough, he has changed his domicile.

Petty-Officer Herbert: Yes, but he will not be subject to the three years' delay, and the Englishman will. That is the point. Five is the case of an English girl who is married to an American, who, after the war, deserts her to America. She has then got to chase him to America, find out his court and sue him there. That is a combination of the present law and this Bill. But—number 6—under the beneficent provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1937 if an English girl marries an Englishman who deserts her to America, she can proceed for a divorce in England. That, by the way, seems to

point to a solution of the whole of the problem, but I must not go into that now.
Now I come to the really terrible cases of Newfoundland—or Eire. We really ought not to dismiss the fact from our minds that there are British possessions where there is no divorce. An English girl marries a man in war time. Under this Bill, if she stays in England, she can get a divorce at once through a single act of adultery. But if she goes over there she is in a difficulty. It is not an easy country and some very queer things go on over there. All the matrimonial offences possible may be committed yet that girl is tied up for ever. She cannot come home to her mother in this country, obtain a divorce, settle down again and have children in this country. And let us never forget that we want our girls to marry again and have children in cases where the first marriage breaks down. Finally—and this is the crowning absurdity of the whole thing—if that same girl goes to Newfoundland and suffers many matrimonial offences which are no use to her, but then finds a ground for nullity, to which even the churches do not object, such is the extraordinary, and, I think, fatuous state of the law, that she can come home to mother in England and the court says "We have jurisdiction."

The Attorney-General: When the husband is not resident there?

Petty-Officer Herbert: According to this tome that I have here, yes. If it is wrong, we must see it is corrected.

The Attorney-General: I give it to my hon. and gallant Friend as a point.

Petty-Officer Herbert: It says in page 36 of Browne and Latey:
Nullity of marriage. The court can entertain a suit for nullity of marriage—(1) where the marriage took place in England, apart from the domicile or residence of the parties.
That is the law as explained in Browne and Latey. If it is nullity domicile means nothing and the girl can come home from Newfoundland and be freed, but if it is divorce—adultery, desertion, or cruelty, then she is doomed to a life of loneliness. Those are my cases. I challenge the Attorney-General on this. I may be wrong, but I do not think that I am, very badly.

The Attorney-General: I think I ought to apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend. The one that I thought was wrong was Number 5. I thought when he spoke of "after the war" it meant after the war began, but it means after the "appointed day."

Petty - Officer Herbert: Thank you. That is right. So I leave my case to the jury. Five cases are added by this Bill making the law more contradictory than ever. Wait until the judges get on to the Measure, wait till the people begin to write Members letters and say, "Why cannot I get the benefit of this Bill when the man next door can?" Let Members be sure what they do before they vote for the Third Reading of this Bill. I am very glad that we made this demonstration: I think it was worth it; and I, personally, propose to do more than that. I hoped when we passed the Act of 1937—divorce having become respectable—we could cease to worry about these things.

Sir Patrick Hannon: rose—

Petty-Officer Herbert: I mean respectable in a Parliamentary sense. But I again propose to take steps to have a Bill or two drafted ready for the day when private Members can start initiating legislation again. I am prepared to discuss two fairly simple remedies—I know it can never be really simple—at once, and my hon. Friend has another remedy. Whatever else we have done—and we have not done very much, as we have not obtained one Amendment—I do not think our demonstration has been in vain. It is most desirable that the House should keep a close eye on the courts and on the legal hierarchy. The slow process of case law does not always keep pace with the customs of the people. Some old rule crops up by accident in 1857, and is passed along by judge after judge: a bit is added here, and a bit taken away there, it is pared and polished, and developed, and at last it is presented, like this rule of domicile, as if it were an inevitable law of Nature, though Parliament has never considered it. So I am glad that we have questioned it to-day; and if the Bill is given a Third Reading the Government should make it clear that they are going to consider the whole question seriously and bring these affairs into line with the customs and conscience of the people.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: My hon. Friend said the Bill creates a lot of fresh hard cases. I do not think that that is altogether true. I do not think that it creates a large number of hard cases that would not arise if the Bill were not passed, but it creates a great number of anomalies that would not otherwise exist. I have only risen to make two remarks. The Bill shows this House at its very worst. For 25 years we have flinched from the problem, with the result that our divorce laws are hypocritical beyond belief. The tragedy of the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) in 1937 is that, through no fault of his own, it did not go to the root of the problem and did not really radically solve it. This Bill is the result. The divorce laws of this country have not stood up to the pressure of war. That is why we are being invited by the Government to pass this temporary ad hoc Bill covering a limited number of cases for a limited period and creating far more anomalies than ever existed before.
The objection that some of us have to the Bill is that it is informed by no kind of principle whatever. There is no principle underlying the Bill, and I defy the learned Attorney-General to bring forward any principle to justify it. The argument of some in this House is that the Bill is one more proof that the divorce laws of the country have to be radically reconsidered and revised in the light of modern conditions and put on to a sound foundation. Although I am not prepared to vote against the Bill, because I think it will bring a measure of relief to a number of deserving people, it is one more proof, if proof were needed, that the divorce laws of this country have to be made adequate by this House.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Baxter: I want to make one or two brief observations, having heard all the Debate to-day. I do not believe that this Rill is necessary at all. The Attorney-General has spoken several times to-day of the right of the courts to take decisions in exceptional circumstances. The war has created exceptional circumstances in the marriages of our women here to soldiers from overseas. In considering cases for divorce by desertion and adultery


of these men, surely the courts could have used their discretion and considered this question.

The Attorney-General: They have no discretion at all. The only question where discretion arises is in regard to the three years' bar, which is a minor point.

Mr. Baxter: I do not mean discretion in the rights and wrongs of the case. I understand from the Attorney-General that, where an exceptional case is concerned, the three years' rule can be waived. Therefore, the war itself has created the exceptional circumstances in which a number of girls marry overseas soldiers and it is wise to waive the three years' rule.

The Attorney-General: They could decide to waive the three-year rule, but unless this Bill is passed they could not entertain divorce proceedings at all, where the husband is someone from overseas domiciled abroad.

Mr. Baxter: Perhaps the Attorney-General will be patient and regard me as an ordinary uninformed member of the public?

The Attorney-General: That is too great a task.

Mr. Baxter: I am very glad that point has been brought out, because I think there are some others besides myself who did not appreciate it. I still think, however, that between now and the final stage the Attorney-General should give some thought, especially to the girl who goes out and lives three days with her husband overseas to try to make the marriage good, and thereby all her rights are taken away from her. Finally I think this Bill has taken very little account of the succeptibilities and the feelings of women who have made different kinds of marriages—women in the same street, village and suburb, a girl who has married an Englishman who has gone wrong as compared with the girl who has married a Pole who has gone wrong, and so on. I think it will create bitter feeling and I would urge him, if possible, to try to modify it between now and the final stage.

5.22 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I would point out to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) that this is the final stage. There

is no further stage of amendment. We either accept the Bill or reject it. I have been agitating for 17 years, as I said on Second Reading, for something to be done. I am sorry this is a temporary Bill and not a permanent one, but to reject it because it creates a few anomalies, seems to me—

Mrs. Tate: A few?

Sir H. Williams: Yes, in number; in theory a large number, but in actual fact very few. That is the point. Because it creates anomalies, we should not deny justice to about 99 per cent. of the people to whom it will open the door of the court, and that is the fundamental thing. The Attorney-General pointed out to the hon. Member for Wood Green that without this Bill the door of the court is locked, and none of the English girls concerned can go into the court.

The Attorney-General: That is right.

Sir H. Williams: What we have done by this Bill is to unlock the door of the English courts to every English girl who marries a man from overseas domiciled abroad, provided that the girl does not leave this country. As long as she remains here, the doors of our courts are open to her, and to say that that is not worthy of support I find incomprehensible. It will do a lot of good. It will not do all the good it might, but it will deal with the bulk of the cases, and I shall support its Third Reading.

5.23 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I have spoken a good deal this afternoon, and I do not want to repeat what I said on the earlier discussion. I would like to thank all my hon. Friends who have taken part in the discussion for their courtesy, although we have not always seen eye to eye, for the way in which they have put their points. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) challenged me to state a principle. I will do so. It can be quite shortly stated. There are two principles. The first principle is this. The Government considered that the special circumstances surrounding or attending these overseas marriages, if I may so describe them, justified extending to them provisions other than those which we think are right for the normally placed British girl. One can disagree or agree with that, but that is a perfectly intelligible principle which I think has been


accepted by the majority of the House. The second is this: On some future occasion we can discuss whether it, or something like it, should be absorbed into the permanent structure of our laws, that where someone who is domiciled overseas marries a girl here, if the marriage breaks down before they have taken up their home in the intended country—namely, his domicile, wherever it is—then our courts should have jurisdiction. That is a perfectly intelligible principle, and that is the principle of this Bill.
Many of my hon. Friends say we ought to have made it now. I would like to say this, that I have had many suggestions of different kinds put up to me in the course of this war to which, after consulting the proper authorities I had to say "No, this does not concern either the war or reconstruction." The Government have accepted the war, but we do not ask Parliament to make permanent changes to the law in war time unless they are connected either with the war or with some post-war problem which it is desired to deal with. I think that is true in this Bill. However, I do not want to rouse controversy. We have dealt with this, we think rightly, as a special problem, and for that reason we made the Bill temporary. I believe, with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), that it meets 99 per cent. of the cases which we have all had in mind. There are differences between it and the ordinary law, because we think it is right to deal with these cases on somewhat different lines. The people who think they ought to be dealt with on the same lines call them anomalies; I call them sensible differences, having regard to the special circumstances of these matters. I doubt if I shall persuade—and I think I should be wasting my breath if I sought to persuade—my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) not to divide against the Third Reading. However, I hope that she will no, but, if she does, I am confident that the House will carry the Measure.

Mrs. Tate: Before the Attorney-General sits down, could I ask one question? I quite admit that owing to the domicile it is impossible to vote against the Third Reading, because it would be penalising a large number of people, but is it not the case that we are being asked to pass this Bill to-day not because we are attempting to revise the divorce laws but

because we refuse to revise the laws of domicile?

5.27 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: I do not want to vote sub silentio on the Third Reading of this Bill. I am profoundly opposed to divorce in every shape and form and against Bills on this matter being presented to the House. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) brought in his Bill in 1937 I did everything I possibly could to prevent it getting through this House, but he succeeded. I think that in these days we ought to concentrate more on stimulating family life and the unity of the home, which is the unit of our society, rather than breaking it up by introducing Bills of this kind in the House of Commons. The case submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is important because we might place English girls in this country at serious disability if this Bill were not to become law, but I say that we ought to give more attention to the unity and sanctity of family life, and not bring divorce Measures before this House. I should be wanting in my duty to the House and the strong principles I maintain about building up family life in this country, if I did not make my protest against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1945, presented on 26th September, be approved."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

5.30 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: Just a few words on this interesting document, which I think is almost unique. I believe it is the only account of any charity submitted once a year to this House for approval. At least, it is not an account, it is a statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation. However, the real thing that prompted me to get up for two or three minutes tonight was the fact that this


document was laid in dummy on the Table on 26th September. Some days afterwards my hon. Friend put down a Motion that we should approve it, and that Motion was put down long before this document was available for hon. Members in the Vote Office.
It was first in the Vote Office last Thursday. Intimation to Members that it was in the Vote Office was on the pink slips that are sent to us. Mine arrived on Saturday morning when, for good reasons, I was not at my office. Therefore, it was only yesterday that I knew that this document was available. I am not blaming my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. A similar thing has happened to him as happened to the Home Secretary, when somebody forgot to do something in time, except that in this case something was done too quickly. The official responsible for the piece of paper going into the Votes and Proceedings Office, showing that the document had been laid, also drafted the Motion saying that it should be approved and sent that in too, before the document was available. Although this is a trifling matter it is important, because it is only by looking after the small things that we can keep the big things in order.
Having got the document, it is interesting to observe that this charity has persistently been run at a loss. Last year, the estimated balance of expenditure over income in the case of Greenwich Hospital was £4,800, and the estimated loss this year will be £7,927. This loss is apparently approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty and Lord Bruntisfield, who is one of the members of the Board of Admiralty. It seems that the Admiralty are used to dealing in such large sums these days and are not taking much account of this loss. They have property all over the place, and a good deal of money invested in British Government securities, having transferred, last year, a large sum from Indian railways to Government securities, no doubt as part of the Government's process of realising overseas assets.
Their main job in this matter is to run a school, the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook in Suffolk. The accounts show that to run the school there are a superintendent and a headmaster. I am not quite clear why a superintendent as well

as a headmaster is required. That seems a little unusual. The superintendent, who has a furnished residence and an entertainment allowance, gets so much, and the headmaster, who has an unfurnished residence and is not so well off, receives less money. I would like to know what the superintendent does. I do not know why he should be better paid than the headmaster although perhaps the case may be something like that of the Provost of Eton, who has a highly ornamental job and has an assistant Provost to do most of the work, which is a kind of position I have been looking for for years.
I see that for the religious education of the boys there is a contribution of £80 to the Navy Votes for the services of a Methodist chaplain, R.N. (borne in H.M.S. "Ganges"). At least, the First Lord of the Admiralty gets it; the chaplain gets nothing. Then I see that there is an allowance of £96 to a Roman Catholic priest. Why should there be this discrimination? It calls for some criticism. I am glad to see that the school pays rates, but it is difficult to find out the cost per child. There is expenditure for the school amounting to so much and there is this interesting item: "Grant by the Board of Education in respect of boys in the school, £1,350." So it looks that the cost of education of the boys in the school is less than it really is. I see that the cost has gone up from £88 9s. 10d. in 1937–38, to £132 11s. 6d. last year. This is the estimate for next year, although those figures relate to last year. One would have thought that the Admiralty would have estimated the number of boys, as they had estimated the amount of expenditure. The number is not stated for this year. It was 588 for 1941–42 and for 1942–43, so presumably it will be about the same for 1943–44. The cost this year, so far as I can calculate it, will be £150. As between 1942–43 and what is called the year 1944, which I presume is the year 1944–45, and which seems a little inconsistent in chronology—the cost will go up from £132 11s. 6d. to £150. We ought to have some explanation about that. The late Mr. G. S. Reade, from whose estate the Reade Foundation was created, left 850 acres to be held by the Admiralty for the exclusive benefit of Greenwich Hospital. I do not know what is the rental value of these 850 acres—

Mr. A. Bevan: At 1939 value?

Sir H. Williams: It does not say that, but the estate, with the exception of a small part which is let, is occupied by the Royal Hospital School and the home farm. So far as I know, nothing has been taken into account for the rental value of this land. But then the document ends with something which is encouraging. The total estimated income from the late Mr. Travers' estate is £2,292 per annum, which results in 29 people getting pensions of £75 per annum, which I hope will be borne in mind when we have the Social Security Debate. But I am not quite clear who the beneficiaries are; there is no indication as to who has qualified for the Travers pension. Here, again, the Admiralty are running into debt. Last year they lost £173, and this year it is estimated that they will lose £298.
I wondered why this document was to be brought before Parliament, and I see that it has been brought before us under chapter 42, 48 and 49 Viet. The curious thing is that this was an Act of Parliament which laid down that particulars of all charities administered by the Admiralty should be brought once a year before Parliament for approval. I think we had better amend that Act, and put this charity under the Charity Commissioners rather than the Admiralty. They are running into debt, and there will not be enough money with which to pay any pensions. As regards the education of the boys it would not be a bad idea if my hon. Friend consulted the Minister of Education to see what kind of a show he would make of it if the school was transferred to him from the Admiralty.

5.37 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): As a Member of this House I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on his watchfulness, and the fact that this Estimate has been challenged for the first time for many years is a justifiable revenge by hon. Members for having had to read it on the Order Paper for so many weeks. My hon. Friend is perfectly right. There was a breakdown in the presentation of the accounts to the Vote Office. The Motion was signed by me on 26th September, which was supposed to be the date for the presentation of the Estimates, yet they were not available until Thurs-

day of last week, in spite of the fact that the Motion was signed by me so long ago. My hon. Friend was good enough to exempt me personally from his censure, but I am afraid that he was too kind. As I signed the Motion I must take full responsibility, because I should have assured myself that the accounts had actually gone to the Vote Office for the study of hon. Members. There was the usual printing delay, but that cannot be considered an adequate excuse for the failure to synchronise the Motion with the presentation of the accounts and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, to accept my apology for what is entirely my fault. Neither my right hon. Friend the First Lord nor Lord Bruntisfield, nor myself, would wish to have been discourteous in any way to hon. Members of this House.
My hon. Friend also asked me why this particular charity of all charities should go through this very elaborate procedure and come before the House annually. May I look back into its history and show how very close the connection has been between this charity, the Crown and Parliament? I should like to check the dates that my hon. Friend has given. My advice is that this is laid before the House in accordance with the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1885. There have been several Acts of Parliament concerning this charity, which make it imperative that the Admiralty should lay the accounts before Parliament yearly.
This charity was started by Queen Mary II in the old Palace of Greenwich for wounded and disabled seamen after the victory of La Hogue, in 1692. She died shortly afterwards, but King William III carried on her wishes and granted funds to Greenwich Hospital obtained by the House of Lords from fines on certain merchants and smugglers. He even gave his royal blessing to a national lottery which was called the Charitable Adventure. Smugglers and pirates continued to be a fruitful source of the Greenwich Hospital Funds, and in the reign of Queen Anne its exchequer was increased considerably by no less notorious a person than Captain Kidd. Again during the first Jacobite Rebellion in 1715 a very big windfall came from the Earl of Derwentwater, who supported the Old Pretender, lost his head, and forfeited his estates to the Crown, and the


House of Commons at the request of King George II devoted in 1736 all funds from the Derwentwater estate to Greenwich Hospital. In the 17th century the funds of Greenwich Hospital were amalgamated with the Chatham Chest, which was one of the first contributory schemes of its kind, of 6d. a month from seamen, beginning in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Most seamen then, however, preferred to live in the hospital rather than draw their pension in cash. After the French Wars funds grew so low that in 1834 Parliament finally abolished the contributory pensions scheme and made a grant direct from the House to Greenwich Hospital, to be charged on the Consolidated Fund. At a later date, when these cash pensions once again became more popular than residence in the hospital, the hospital's overhead charges grew so high that the Admiralty took over the buildings for the Royal Naval College. To-day the funds of the hospital are spent partly on pensions and partly on the Royal Hospital School for Seamen's Sons at Holbrook. This school is on the estate left by Mr. Reade in 1829. I know that at this time the figures of the expense of educating these boys looks unsatisfactory. The reason is that the numbers at the schools have fallen considerably because of the war. Holbrook is so situated that it was thought advisable only to take in a sufficient number of boys who can be accommodated in the safer areas of the school and the ground floors of their buildings. The numbers are considerably down but there is every hope that during the coming year, if conditions get better, the numbers will increase to the normal peace-time figure.
My hon. Friend also asked me why there were both a superintendent and a headmaster. As a Royal Naval School, it was thought necessary to have a naval superintendent and a headmaster under him. But that matter is under consideration and I hope that news of a change may soon be published.
My hon. Friend asked me specifically about the Travers Foundation. Samuel Travers was Auditor-General to the Prince of Wales who afterwards became George II. The money from his bequest was to be used to house, within the castle walls of Windsor, naval lieutenants, and shortly afterwards naval commanders were in-

cluded, to be known as the Naval Knights of Windsor. These lieutenants and knights had to be single men, without children, inclined to a virtuous, studious and devout life, and to be removed if they gave occasion for scandal. At a later date these bachelor candidates of virtue began to be difficult to find. The result was that the Corporation of the Naval Knights of Windsor was dissolved by Parliament in 1892 and the property and funds were invested in the Admiralty, also by Act of Parliament, but on condition that the Travers Account was to be kept distinct from the general accounts of Greenwich Hospital and shown separately in statements rendered to Parliament year by year, which is why we present the Travers Account to-day separately from the general accounts of Greenwich Hospital. My hon. Friend asked me several questions that I cannot answer at once but, as far as the school is concerned, we are suffering very much as I said from the fact that the war and the position of the school have reduced our numbers, though we hope to build them up in the coming year. The other suggestions and criticisms that he made I will gladly take back to the Admiralty for consideration.

Mr. A. Edwards: When the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to exonerate everyone in the Department from blame, was he not going a little too far? When the Home Secretary apologised to the House, he said the people in his Department had heard about it and it was not likely to occur again. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to go as far as that?

5.49 p.m.

Earl Winterton: It would not be in Order to discuss the difference between this system and that of the Army, which is a much better system, by which the Paymaster-General is responsible to the House for the administration of Chelsea Hospital. He has to advise him a Council of ex-officers of distinction who run the hospital, and if anything goes wrong questions can be asked in the House. Is there any outside advice taken in the administration of these very important charities which involve sums of money given partly by pious benefactors in the past, or are they being administered by an extremely overburdened Department? Is there no system by which the First Lord can call in an


Advisory Council of ex-naval officers? Is such a Council in existence?

Mr. Thomas: There is no outside advice in this matter. The charity is administered by the Admiralty and the accounts are laid before the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. A. Bevan: The hon. Member has not asked the permission of the House to speak a second time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is perfectly true. We are not in Committee. I am not raising it for the purpose of creating difficulties, but it must not be taken for granted that a Minister can speak an indefinite number of times.

5.51 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will look into the point I want to raise. If this charity is to go on losing money from year to year, Parliament should have more knowledge of the assets of the trust. It is not much use producing a document which is based on income and expenditure. We want to know from year to year, if the expenditure exceeds the income, that there are sufficient assets to account for the annual deficit, and we want to see that we are not running into a situation which will call for some action of the House. I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend to find out whether it will be possible next year to include a full balance sheet showing the assets and liabilities of Greenwich Hospital.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I made my first speech from the Front Bench nine years ago in defence of this charity, and I am extremely interested in this school. The thing that worries me is not so much the point that has been raised, but the fact that there used to be 1,000 boys at the school. I remember when there were more. Can my hon. Friend tell me what is happening to the sons of these seamen who used to get the advantage of this magnificent school? I have not quite got the point why the numbers are reduced. I realise roughly the position in regard to security, but does my hon. Friend mean that the place is being used for other purposes, or that it is not considered advisable to have these numbers there? The reduction means that boys are being deprived of one of the best and healthiest schools in the country.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I hope that the Minister will have the willing leave of the House to reply to the various points that have been raised, because the whole purpose of this procedure is to give Members the opportunity to put questions and points arising out of the Motion and for these points to be answered. We are indebted to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) for having raised this matter. The Minister has worn the white sheet with such wonderful grace that he has almost persuaded us that it was his own. It is clear that he has done it out of the spirit of chivalry. Are we to understand that there is no advisory council in connection with this school? I suggest that it is desirable that there should be one, not only to represent the point of view of the interests of the parents, but to include people with educational experience and knowledge.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Thomas: I must make my second apology to the House to-day and this time for not asking permission to speak a second time. I got up rather quickly to answer the Noble Lord and did not intend to make a second speech. If I may have the leave of the House, I would repeat that there is no council of naval officers to advise the Admiralty in the administration of the finances of Holbrook. The Board of Admiralty functions as the governing body of the school, and there is no outside council to assist it. In answer to my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), the capital expenditure is looked at by the Auditor-General and put before the Public Accounts Committee.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I also referred to the assets.

Mr. Thomas: I will look into that point and let my Noble Friend know. In answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), as far as I know the space is not being used for anything other than for the school, but it has been found practicable for security reasons not to increase the numbers. I hope that it will be possible for that policy to be reversed in the near future. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon has performed a useful service in starting this Debate, and the Admiralty will bear in mind the points and criticisms that have been made.

Mr. Lindsay: Will they consider particularly the question of an educational advisory council? I think the time is ripe for it.

Mr. Thomas: I will certainly put that point to the First Lord and to the Board of Admiralty for their consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1945, presented on 26th September, be approved.

Orders of the Day — GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved.
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Buckhaven and Leven Gas Commissioners, which was presented on 2nd August and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

Resolved:
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Chelmsford, which was presented on 3rd October and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — DISCHARGED STEEL-WORKER (SHEFFIELD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Dobbie: I desire to raise a case with which I have been pursuing the Minister of Labour for a considerable time. I refer to the dismissal of a man from his employment when working under the Essential Work Order and to his rehabilitation in the industry in which he was employed. This man was a steel worker in the Sheffield area and he lives in the constituency which I represent. He has lost his work in circumstances which have caused a good deal of resentment in the district because of the apparent apathy of the officials of the Ministry of Labour, both local and national. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the facts of the case, and it is only after many attempts by corre-

spondence and by Questions to the Minister in the House that I felt there was no intention on the part of the Ministry to do anything of a practical character in the matter. It is only because of that that I bring it to the House to-night. I do not do it because of any publicity that I desire to give it, but to see if we can persuade the Minister to do something to rehabilitate this man into the industry from which he has been so unfairly dismissed. As this man was working under the Essential Work Order, he naturally looked upon the Ministry of Labour to support him. He was disappointed. He was a departmental manager in a cold steel rolling mill—

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

Mr. Dobbie: There is probably no need to name the firm by whom he was employed, because I do not think there is any charge against the Ministry with regard to them. I am informed by the men in the industry, who know the industry well and the technicalities of the job, that this man was well-equipped with knowledge of his job and was an excellent workman in every detail. He was not only an excellent practical man but a good shop organiser, from the standpoint of production. It goes without challenge, even from his employer, that, in the short period after his engagement in this post, he raised the production of the mill 100 per cent.
It was in 1942 that he was dismissed, and he has not done any work since until a week or two ago. One would think that in a time of need, when steel was se much wanted, when a man was good at production and so much needed in the country, it would have been the duty of the Ministry of Labour to see that a man of this character was kept in employment. The firm for whom he was working were so pleased in the initial stages of his work that they sent him a letter thanking him for his increased output and for the standard of the work that he was turning out. It was only when it became known what his leanings were towards the workmen and towards organisation, that there seemed to be difficulties beween him and the heads of the firm.
Then things started to become unpleasant. Eventually they persuaded the man to sign a paper for his release. It was against his desire, and with the thought that it would cause an inquiry to be made at the same time as he signed it he wrote: "This signature has been obtained by duress by my employer." Again, the man was disappointed. He thought that that statement would cause an inquiry to be made by the Ministry of Labour official who was responsible for granting releases and giving permission to employers to discharge men. No inquiry was ever held, and the man walked the streets from August, 1942, a man highly skilled in the production of the steel which was so much wanted, without one single direction to employment from the Ministry of Labour, while in the same town at the same time, men were constantly being brought up and sent to jail for absenteeism.
One can understand that not only the man himself but the people in the locality where he lived, and the industrial workers in the area noticed these things and wondered why this man was being victimised. One can use that word, because at least on one occasion when the man had obtained on his own initiative a responsible post and when all arrangements had been made for him to obtain a house and start work on Monday morning, he received a wire from the firm telling him that another man had obtained the job. That wire was received two days after his prospective employers knew the names of the people with whom he had been employed. Naturally that man is suffering under this opinion, which on examination one could feel he is justified in having, that it is a case of victimisation, and that because of the attitude of his previous employers who, not content with having him turned out of his work with the consent—I nearly said with the help of, but with the consent—of the responsible official of the Ministry of Labour this man is also being kept from obtaining employment of a similar character, work to which he is accustomed. One could have understood it if the man had been an inferior workman, if he had not been able to do his job; but as I have said, he is well qualified, well equipped in the job of cold steel rolling, well equipped in the art of shop management, with a great knowledge of the industry. Alto-

gether this man has been unable to find employment for two years.

Mr. Bowles: Can my hon. Friend say whether the man appealed to the National Service Officer to have the order revoked, and if so, and the employer did not obey, did he take proceedings for arrears of wages?

Mr. Dobbie: I shall deal with that in a moment. From time to time the man applied to the Labour Officer but took no court action. He wrote to the Minister of Labour. I myself have put down Questions in the House, and have also written a good number of letters to the Minister in regard to the situation.
Eventually we had an investigation into the matter in July of this year. There were present the representative of the Ministry from Leeds, with the man concerned and myself: We reviewed the whole situation. We asked that this man's case might be reviewed by the Minister. We asked that he might have an opportunity of applying his knowledge in the industry in which he had been trained. The man said: "I do not care where I go to work." In the case I have put I ask that he might be reinstated in the place where he had worked. There was, I consider, an error of judgment for which I think the Minister would accept responsibility, not a personal responsibility but as Minister, for an error of judgment committed by someone in the Ministry of Labour. Inasmuch as that has been made quite crystal clear, I thought it was the duty of the Minister to see that the man was rehabilitated in the industry, and that if it was not possible to reinstate him with the firm for which he had previously worked, there were many firms in the country, there was much to be done in the production of steel, in which this well-equipped and knowledgeable man could have been found employment.
There was a question of compensation. I think this man is entitled to compensation from the Ministry for the fact that he lost two years' work and found the doors of other places closed against him, and was unable to find employment, and today has a little job which finishes next week, and which was not obtained through the Ministry, but through his efforts and those of a friend of his. We had the investigation, and the result was as disappointing as all the previous efforts to get the man reinstated. I see that the Par-


liamentary Secretary has a good deal of the correspondence there. Hundreds of letters have passed between the man, the Ministry, and myself on the matter. The last letter that we had, after the investigation had taken place, said:
I have looked into the case of Mr. A. Thomas, of Rotherham, about which you wrote to Bevin on 7th September. As you know, Mr. Thomas was employed … at Sheffield as a departmental manager. It appears that in consequence of some disagreement Mr. Thomas was invited by the directors to resign his post with them and did so in September, 1942. Under the provisions of the Essential Works Order, a person employed by a scheduled undertaking may not leave his employment, or be discharged by the employers (except for serious misconduct), without the permission of the National Service officer. No such permission was obtained in Mr. Thomas' case and it would appear, therefore, that an infringement of the Order accursed. The most that the Department could have done in the circumstances would have been to institute proceedings under the Order against the party concerned for irregularly terminating the employment without the permission of the National Service officer, but when the matter was considered at the time it was felt that the circumstances were such as to make it unlikely that successful proceedings could be instituted, and it was decided, therefore, that the Department should take no further action in the matter. I cannot attempt to adjudicate on matters which were in dispute between Mr. Thomas and the firm, but I feel confident that the Department's decision not to institute proceedings under the Essential Work Order was justified. You are, I think, aware that Mr. Thomas is not prepared to consider any other employment unless the salary is at least £840 a year. We have tried without success to find a suitable post for him, and I am afraid that there is very little prospect of ever being able to offer him other employment which he would be likely to accept. Further, he makes a special point of requiring a payment of compensation amounting to two years' salary. There is no fund out of which I can authorise any such payment.
That letter was very disappointing. In our own area we have seen so many people being brought up in front of the justices for absenteeism, and when the Ministry admit that a man has been dismissed or has left his employment through some infringement of the Order, his case should be dealt with. Then, if the fault was Thomas's he should have been prosecuted, and if the fault was that of the employers they should have been prosecuted. In an area where numbers of men are being sent to gaol for absenteeism, we cannot find any employer who will employ this man, who has been on the street for two years.

Also, he has lost his money, and when he started in this job he was right down on the poverty line. I think the Ministry should pay some compensation. What is more important than any claim to compensation is that the man should be reinstated in the industry in which he has spent his life. Not only has he lost his job with that firm, but the doors of every other firm are closed against him. I wonder whether it is because the man is being blacklisted?
If they had done nothing else, the Ministry ought to have cleared that up and seen that the man had, at least, an opportunity to get back into the industry. I hope that, in spite of the long controversy we have had, and all the correspondence, it is not too late yet for the Minister to deal with the matter. After all, if you send men to gaol, you ought to assert yourselves and compel the employers to give work to men capable of doing the job. That is the point in this case which not only the man himself, but the people in the area, cannot understand. They know the value and capacity of the man as a workman, and they know that a great injustice has been done to him. I hope it is not too late for the Minister to show that he is prepared, not only to look at the matter, but to do something which would get the man rehabilitated in the end.

6.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): My hon. Friend gave notice some time ago to raise this question, and he has told the story, from the point of view of, the man himself, in a way of which I am not complaining. I think it ought to be clearly understood that the Ministry came into this question after the man had left his employment. In a letter which he wrote in September to the Ministry, he called attention to the fact that he had left his job but that that had been done at the behest of the firm; in other words, he had been asked to resign, had complied with the request to resign, and had then written to the Minister, a fortnight or three weeks afterwards asking that the matter should be investigated.
Under the provisions of the Essential Work Orders, as my hon. Friend has stated, a person employed in a scheduled undertaking may not leave his employment, or be discharged by his employer,


without the permission of the National Service officer. It is not questioned that no such permission was obtained in Thomas's case, and I am prepared to admit that an infringement of the Order occurred. There is no question of that. When an infringement of the Order occurs, somebody has got to decide whether or not a prosecution is to take place, and I want my hon. Friend to understand that, in this instance, there can be no question of the Ministry not being prepared to prosecute an employer. As a matter of fact the position of the man himself in the firm would place him from the point of view of the majority of the workers, almost in the position of an employer.
The question arose who was to be prosecuted. The man had left his employment without getting permission. Therefore, the Department had got to decide whether he should be prosecuted for having left his employment without, permission, or whether, in the light of his letter, the employers should be prosecuted for having obtained, as it were underduress, the man's resignation. The Department, after considering all that was involved—and it is not accepted by all employers and all workers that the man was capable of doing this job; that was a question between the employer and himself—

Mr. Dobbie: Surely, the Minister is not questioning the capacity of the man, in view of the letter of recommendation which the employer gave him, and of which the Minister has a copy?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I am not questioning the capacity of the man, but his ability to carry out the duties which the employer expected him to do in the relationship which evolved between them. The request for the resignation of a man enjoying a position of that kind is not simply because the employers do not like the look of his eyes. They have some reason for wanting it. We had to decide whether the man or the employer should be prosecuted and, rightly or wrongly, we came to the conclusion that it would be better to prosecute neither.

Mr. A. Bevan: Has not the initiative always to come from the employer? It is legalistic fiction when employer and employee are held equally responsible in these matters. The initiative must always come from the employer.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not arguing the position of the employer and the workman. It is only an instance where infringement of the Order has taken place and prosecution may take place in consequence. In many instances where infringement has taken place and where it is to the benefit of the man that he should be allowed to remain where he is no one suggests that because there has been infringement of the Order there should be prosecution.
Now comes the difficult part of this case. My hon. Friend suggests that we kept this man walking about two years without attempting either to rehabilitate him or to put him into work. The man laid down the stipulation himself that he wanted a job of £840 a year. I have had some experience during the last 3½ years of people who believe that they are entitled to a good deal of pay for the job they are doing. It is not an easy matter to place a man in a job at £840 a year whatever his qualifications. Therefore we were limited. My hon. Friend asked why we did not direct him to an easier and less well paid job. Again, rightly or wrongly, we considered that this man, who thought that he was capable of an executive job and wanted an opportunity to improve himself, ought not to be directed to a very inferior job.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the fact that we intimated that all the doors were closed because of the victimisation of the employers could not something specially be done?

Mr. Tomlinson: We tried through all our machinery to find someone who was prepared to find him work. What would my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said if such an individual had been directed to a two or three pounds a week job? We did not think that he should be subject to direction under Defence Regulation 58A. That is the explanation. This man speaks about compensation, and on the face of it it looks as if he has a claim to some consideration. There is no fund out of which we can pay compensation. I have received a personal letter from him. It is very personal, and he suggests that the £25,000 for which he is asking might come out of the same fund as that which provides Bevin's and Tomlinson's wages. That is a practical suggestion but it is not open to the Ministry of Labour. He


not only wants £25,000 compensation for loss of two years' salary but for loss of prospects during those two years.

Mr. A. Bevan: Maybe he has heard that recently a director of a great newspaper was paid £67,000 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and perhaps he thought he was entitled to the same consideration.

Mr. Tomlinson: Maybe he did, but I am not able to hold out any hope that compensation of that kind would be paid. What I can say is that the man is now working. It is true that he considers it work of a temporary character until he can get back to something better which he considers he is capable of doing. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that so far as we are concerned, any help we can we are prepared to give, but from the standpoint of compensation for loss of work, or for what he calls lack of understanding and initiative on the part of the Ministry of Labour, I can hold out no hope to him that he is going to benefit.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I know nothing about the facts of the case except those put forward by my hon. Friend and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and I know enough about the latter to know that if anything has gone wrong it has not been for any lack of personal sympathy on his part. However, I am bound to tell him, and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me, that sometimes his local officials take very queer views about these cases. For instance, I cannot accept the position at all that the initial stages of this dispute exonerate the Minister. My hon. Friend said that the Ministry had to decide whether they were to take action against both or neither—

Mr. Tomlinson: Or either.

Mr. Bevan: As a consequence of making a wrong decision in the initial stage of the dispute, the thing has been wrong right the way through, because no investigation has been made into whether the employer was justified in asking for this resignation. It is quite true that the man himself should have made a complaint and should have insisted upon an investigation being made. But the fact is that in these cases, especially in those of men of his status, where the employer says,

"I no longer want you," that finishes it. But the initial mistake was the employer's. The employer should have asked permission from the National Service Officer to get rid of the man in the first place. The point is that if the employer had been tackled over the original infringement, proper investigation would have taken place whether the employer was justified or not in the attitude towards the man, and the man might have been justified in the attitude he has taken since. It is quite true that the man may be making extravagant claims now, but if you have been two years suffering from a sense of grievance and victimisation, then you do get into an abnormal state of mind.

Mr. Dobbie: And out of the industry altogether.

Mr. Bevan: It seems to me that my hon. Friend has not exonerated his Department from the complaint—everything depends upon the original act in this case—and the initial fault lay with his Department. I do not know enough about the facts of this case to make a charge about it, but I know enough about the general position to know that quite often the officials of his Department—the National Service Officers—meet the local employers and are smarmed over by them over and over again. He would be making a very great mistake if he thought that the National Service Officers are effective protection to individuals in these circumstances. Now, the man having been dismissed and having been on the market, cannot get employment with other employers. It would be far easier for him to get employment at the rate of £3, £4 or £5 a week but being of this status, and having been dismissed by the employer, with the apparent agreement—

Mr. Tomlinson: Mr. Tomlinson indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: —of the National Service Officer, there is a stigma upon his reputation, and therefore it would be very difficult indeed for him to find employment with any other firm in these circumstances. I think the bulk of the responsibility lies with the officers of my hon. Friend's Department in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Six o'Clock.